
Class. 
Book.. 



Copyrightl^" LriAl_ccv 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. ''J^^ ^1 



PRIZE ESSAYS 

OF THE 

AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION 

1907 



To this Essay and to that by William S. Robertson on Francisco 

de Miranda and the Revolutionizing of Spanish America, 

since published in the first volume of the Annual 

Report of the American Historical Association for 

1907, was awarded in equal division the 

Herbert Baxter Adams Prize 

IN European History 

for 1907 



THE INTERDICT 



ITS HISTORY AND ITS OPERATION 



WITH ESPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE TIME OF 

POPE INNOCENT III 

II98--I216 



BY 

EDWARD B. KREHBIEL. Pk.D. 

INSTRUCTOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 



PUBLISHED BY 

THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION 

WASHINGTON, I909 



^-^% 






'^.[.o\z. 



Copyright, 1909 

By The American Historical Association 

Washington, D. C. 



CLA 246972 
SEP 23 1909 



^5 



■^^'X: 



^0 

the memory of 

My Father 

CHRISTIAN KREHBIEL 
(Died April 30, 1909) 



CONTENTS. 



INTRODUCTION. 

The Scope of This Essay. 



CHAPTER I. 
Origin and Theory of the Local Interdict. 

PAGE 

I. Origin of the interdict : The interdict is a lineal de- 
scendant of excommunication ... 4 

1 . Use of individual excommunication in the early 

church ...... 4 

2. Change to general excommunication, which 

a. Grew out of the necessity of the church. 4 

b. Was made possible by the decline of 

Roman law ..... 5 

c. Was made common by the Teutons . 6 

3. Faults of general excommunication . . 7 

a. Excessive severity .... 7 

b. Injustice ...... 7 

4. Opposition to general excommunication on 

account of these faults produces local 
general interdict .... 7 

5 . The interdict develops slowly ; it is long con- 

fused with other disciplines ... 8 
II. The purpose of the interdict is that of an adminis- 
trative order ...... 9 

(v) 



VI 



CONTENTS 



III. 



The theoretical effect of the interdict is to deprive a 




district of one or all of the following 




I . Divina officia , which include 




a. Offertory of the mass .... 


13 


b. Canonical hours .... 


14 


c. Sacramentals 


14 


d. Services performed by a priest . 


15 


2. Sacraments ...... 


15 


a. Baptism ...... 


IS 


b. Confirmation ..... 


15 


c. Penance ..... 


15 


d. Communion ..... 


16 


e. Extreme unction .... 


16 


f. Ordination ..... 


16 


g. Marriage 


16 


3. Canonical burial ..... 


17 



CHAPTER 11. 



The Laying of an Interdict. 



I. Kinds of sentences ...... 

1 . Interdictum latae sententiae . 

2. Interdictum ferendae sententiae . 

II. Those officials can lay interdicts who have their 
authority 

1 . Jure divino ..... 

2 . By virtue of position occupied 
III. Causes for interdicts .... 

1 . Conditions harmful to society 

2. Conditions harmful to the church 

a. In its spiritual interests . 

b. In its temporal interests . 

3. The necessities of ecclesiastics 

a. From these causes developed abuses 



19 
^9 
19 



20 

22 

25 
26 
27 
27 
29 
34 
35 



CONTENTS 



vil 



IV. 


Processes of issuing an interdict 


37 




I. Monition 


. 37 




2. Citation 


. 38 




3. Promulgation 


• 39 




4. Publication 


40 


V. 


Appeal 


. 42 


VI. 


Frequency of interdicts .... 


43 


VII. 


Duration of interdicts .... 


. 44 


VIII. 


Territorial extent of interdicts 


. 46 


IX. 


Geographical distribution of interdicts 


. 48 



CHAPTER III. 



The Interdict in Force. 



I. 


Means of enforcing the interdict .... 


SO 




I. Appeal to religious sensibilities . 


50 




2. Administrative measures .... 


51 




3. Punishment for non-observance 


52 




4. Reward for obedience 


54 


II. 


The value of services performed during the interdict 


56 


III. 


The effects of the interdict .... 


58 




I . On services of the church .... 


58 




a. Marriage 


58 




b. Burial 


59 




c. General ministrations 


62 




2. On the offender 


63 




3. On the public 


65 




4. On the church 


68 




a. In material affairs .... 


69 




b. In degeneracy of clergy 


71 




c. In independence of people 


72 




5 . As reported by the chroniclers 


73 



viii CONTENTS 

PAGE 

CHAPTER IV. 
Moderation and Relaxation of the Interdict. 

I. Moderation of interdicts by 

1. Privileges . . . . ." . 75 

a. Those which forbade the laying of inter- 

dict ...... 76 

b. Those which exempted from interdicts 

laid ...... 76 

2. Ambulatory interdicts 78 

II. Relaxation of interdicts . . . . . 81 

1. Authorities who could relax interdicts . .81 

2. Conditions of relaxation .... 82 



APPENDIX. 
Interdicts from 1198 to 1216. 



I. Threats of interdict 
II. Possible cases of interdict 
III. Actual cases of interdict 
Bibliography 
Index .... 



86 

96 

99 

164 

175 



I 



THE INTERDICT. 

INTRODUCTION. 

The Scope of This Essay. 
Important as was for centuries the part played by the inter- 
dict in the history of both church and state , no book has hith- 
erto been devoted to it. Late in the sixteenth century the 
French jurist Pierre Pithou attempted a survey of its history 
in his essay De Vorigine et du prog7'es des Interdicts ecclesias- 
tiques ; but this, though able, is only a sketch. In 1869 the 
German canonist Franz Kober published in three successive 
issues of the Archiv filr katholisches Kirchenrecht a careful 
study entitled '^Das Interdict." While rich in information re- 
garding the history and use of the interdict, this deals mainly 
with its place in ecclesiastical law. In 1897 a young Amer- 
ican scholar, Arthur C. Rowland, submitted for the doctor- 
ate at the University of Pennsylvania a thesis on ' * The In- 
terdict, its Rise and Development to the Pontificate of 
Alexander III ", /. ^., to 1159.^ This thesis has never been 
printed; but in 1899 Dr. Rowland read before the American 

^ This unpublished thesis has through the great courtesy of Dr. How- 
land (now a professor in the University of Pennsylvania) been at my ser- 
vice throughout my study of this subject. I have further to thank Professor 
Rowland for magnanimously surrendering to me the subject itself and for 
putting into my hands such unused materials as he had at his disposal. I 
take this opportunity to acknowledge also my indebtedness to Dr. J. 
Franklin Jameson for aid both in the choice of my subject and in the 
preparation of my dissertation; and I sincerely regret that M. Achilla 
Luchaire did not live to see this published fruit of his kindness in lending 
me, at that time a total stranger to him, the invaluable notes made by him 
at great cost of labor and means upon the letters of Innocent III found in 
the provincial archives of France. And for assistance of various kinds I 
wish to thank Professors George L. Burr, Charles H. Haskins, Charles 
Gross, Charles V. Langlois, Paul Viollet, Ephraim Emerton, and James 
Westfall Thomipson. 



2 THE INTERDICT 

Historical Association a paper based upon it — *' The Origin 
of the Local Interdict ' ' — which was published in the Associ- 
ation's report for that year. It narrates the story of the inter- 
dict to 1 03 1. Excepting pamphlets purely polemic, like those 
called forth by the Venetian interdict of 1606, and narratives 
devoted to single episodes, these few studies form the entire 
monographic literature of the subject. 

The present essay, while aspiring to serve as a convenient 
introduction to a knowledge of the interdict, attempts no ex- 
haustive treatment. To the history of the interdict its fresh 
contribution is only a sifting and use of the materials for the 
time of Pope Innocent III. Nor is it meant to be a study of 
the canonical law relating to the discipline — a theme adequately 
treated by the canonists. Its aim is to show the actual use and 
effects of the interdict ; and by ^^ the interdict" it for the most 
part means only what has been currently known in history by 
that name — the comprehensive territorial measure known to 
canonists as the ^^ local general interdict", and not unhappily 
defined by an American newspaper, in a recent case of its 
employment, as '' a general ecclesiastical strike ".^ 

2 The local particular interdict, differing from this form mainly by being 
limited to some comparatively small organic whole, is in the present study 
treated as a secondary theme, though often in close connection with the 
local general interdict. The personal interdict, whether particular or gen- 
eral, receives only incidental consideration in so far as it has illustrative 
value. Besides the local and the personal there are yet other forms of the 
interdict. There is an inter dictum totale and an inter dictum partiale^ the 
former being a perfect or complete sentence, the latter being one which 
prohibits only a part of church services. Happily the distinction was 
never embodied in canon law. — Kober, XXI, 303-304. The " ambula- 
tory interdict " is a much more noteworthy and a by no means infrequent 
form. It is treated at length in a later chapter. In form and content the 
ambulatorium offers nothing new. It is the local interdict in itinere. 
The inter dictum propter honor em resulted if a bishop officiated at an altar; 
for the remainder of that day all others were prohibited from celebrating at 
that altar. Though so called, this was not in reality an interdict. — Glosses 
upon the Pragmatic Sanction, cited from Pithou, Des Interdicts Eccl,^ 
23-24: *' Interdictum propter honorem, ut si Episcopus celebravit in 
aliquo altare, de tota ilia die non debet alius celebrare." The interdictum 
propter horror em loci is an unimportant form of cessation of services. — 
Glosses upon Pragmatic Sanction, cited from Pithou, Des Interdicts Eccl.^ 
23-24: "Alia [interdicta] propter horrorem loci, ut si excom. sit sepultus 
in ecclesia vel coemiterio, vel ecclesia poUuta sit sanguine vel semine . , • " 



INTRODUCTION 3 

In order to treat this theme to the best advantage it seemed 
advisable to make an exhaustive study of some typical and 
reasonably short period of time, the sources for which are 
abundant and comparatively available. The pontificate of 
Innocent III seemed to be such a period. The plan of work 
has been shaped by the purpose and the material. To avoid 
constant restatement of the history and the laws relating to the 
interdict, these matters have been briefly treated in the first 
chapter. The other chapters deal with the actual operation 
of the interdict ; they are based principally on material from 
the time of Innocent III, but the author has felt free to insert 
information from other periods whenever it seemed peculiarly 
apposite. The appendix contains a chronological list of inter- 
dicts from irgS to i2i6,manyof which have been partially 
discussed in preceding chapters; partially, because the devel- 
opment of the particular topic under consideration made a 
longer statement of the interdict at that point inadvisable. 
But, as this method left many interesting features of the inter- 
dict unmentioned, such incompletely used cases as are im- 
portant and the source material for which warranted the 
procedure are set down in full in the appendix. 



CHAPTER I. 

Origin and Theory of the Local Interdict. 

Exclusion from membership in a religious, as in a secular 
organization, is a procedure well authorized by universal prac- 
tice. Israel renounced the unfaithful, the Roman state inter- 
dicted the traitor from fire and water, and the Druids' ex- 
cluded the disobedient from any share in religious ceremony. 
The early Christian church for the purpose of self-preservation 
adopted similar measures ; she expelled unworthy members , 
and called the process excommunication. The use of this 
protective measure necessarily increased with the number of 
Christians, for in those wholesale conversions of the first three 
centuries many a half-hearted person must have joined the 
ranks of the faithful. Against converts of such a character 
the church needed protection, especially when the persecu- 
tions set afoot by the emperors produced denials of the faith 
even from earnest Christians. Had none of the ranks proved 
unfaithful, however, the church would still have needed pro- 
tection against heresies,^ which were even at that time widely 
spread. Having no legal status, hence no support from the 
civil authorities, only one resource was left; she must cut 
off from her privileges, that is excommunicate, the offending 
individual. 

With the imperial recognition of Christianity (A. D. 311 
and 313), there came a change in the position of the church 
which gave cause and opportunity for a further development 
of her polity. The legalizing of the Christian religion gave 

> Caesar, De Bello Gallico, VI, 13. 
^Schulte, Kirchenstrafen^ I, 655. 

For full titles and descriptions of the works cited in the notes, the reader 
is referred to the Bibliography at the end of the essay. 

4 



ORIGIN AND THEORY 5 

the church a reputation to sustain. Christians were now put 
on a level with their fellow-men ; would they prove them- 
selves worthy of this elevation, or would the removal of diffi- 
culties cause the saints and martyrs of former years to be 
replaced by communicants of less lofty ideals? Such an event 
was undeniably possible ; did perhaps result to some degree. 
That it went to no excess must have been due to great effort 
of the church authorities, and it is instructive to note that the 
same century which witnessed the legalizing of the church is 
the one within which occurred the first recorded case of general 
excommunication, a censure which by one sentence excluded 
a group of persons from, the church.^ The introduction of 
this new form of censure indicates that excommunication of 
individuals no longer met the needs of ecclesiasts, and that 
experimentation for a more effective discipline had begun. 
Just as the recognition of Christianity was followed by an 
extension of the disciplinary powers of the church, so the act 
by which Christianity became the religion of the state (A. D. 
392) resulted in an increase of those powers, and general ex- 
communication became a recognized censure. It was a blood- 
less and effective weapon, and, in so far, one which an organi- 
zation based upon the teachings of Christ could use. 

The necessity of the church invented general excommunica- 
tion ; the decline of Roman law made it possible. The spirit 
of that law is against the punishment of the innocent, and 
while it retained its vigor a censure of the character of general 
excommunication could not have flourished. Indeed, so did 
this sense of justice linger that, despite the decline of all 
Roman institutions in the fourth century of the Christian era, 
the first case of general excommunication on record does no 
violence to Roman legal principles. In this case the censure 
was put upon a village because one of its inhabitants had car- 
ried away a girl^ from a neighboring place, and because this 

^(a) Hinschius, IV, 804, n. 10. (b) Howland, A. H. A, Rep., 1899, 
I, 433. This is cited as an interdict by Mr. Howland. (c) Kober, XXI, 
4. Kober holds that this is not an interdict. 



6 THE INTERDICT 

village by receiving the captor and the captive had become a 
participant in the offence. The offender was punished and 
others were involved in his punishment j not however for his 
fault, but for a lesser fault of their own in permitting the cap- 
tor to keep his prize in the village. The next instance shows 
a greater departure from the principles of Roman law. Clas- 
sicianus, a Roman official, and his whole family (household) 
were excommunicated by Bishop Auxilius for seizing an of- 
fender who had sought protection at an altar.* Not many years 
later there was a more extended general excommunication. 
Andronicus, governor of Pentapolis, all his associates, and 
their families were excommunicated.^ In neither of the last 
two cases is there any evidence that the associates made them- 
selves responsible by any act of their own. In the first case 
quoted, the principles of Roman jurisprudence were not vio- 
lated; the second seems to depart somewhat, unless it is 
explained on the basis that patronage makes every client a 
partaker in every act of the patron ; the third case is not at 
all reconcilable with Roman legal principles. 

In the growth of general excommunication, the necessity of 
the church and the decline of Roman law were no more potent 
than the advent of the Teutons, for the invaders brought with 
them traditions which favored the censure. Their democratic 
institutions made the clan to some degree responsible for the 
conduct of individuals, a principle which fostered the growth 
of a censure involving many in the punishment of the guilty 
one. As a result general excommunication spread rapidly 
from Roman lands through Teutonic countries,^ and became 
the most commonly used and the most powerful weapon of the 
church. 

* Letter of St. Basil in Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers^ 2nd Ser., VIII, 
589-590. Cited by Rowland. 

^ Synesius, Letters^ 57, 58, 72, 89, in Migne, Pat, Gr,^ 66. Cited by 
Howland, A. H. A. Rep., 1899, I, 433. 

^ (a) Hefele, Conciliengesch,, II, 687-688. Cf. Hardouin, Cone, II, col. 
1053. A portion of Burgundy was censured about 517 A. D. (b) Greg. 
Turon., lib. V, c. 32. The church of St. Denis, Paris, was under censure 
about 579 A. D. 



ORIGIN AND THEORY 7 

But this weapon had two great faults, excessive severity and 
injustice. Excommunication of the individual was bad enough, 
for it excluded entirely from the church, it cut one off from all 
associations, however near or dear or necessary, and its conse- 
quences, pursued the unrepentant sinner even after death. 
Such a censure made general, that is, extended to a group of 
persons, a church, a family, or an organization, was entirely 
too severe and unchristian. If this penalty had fallen only on 
the guilty it might have been endured, but it had the addi- 
tional fault of involving the innocent in the extreme punish- 
ment of the guilty. On account of these faults justice- 
loving prelates had vigorously opposed it' from very early 
times, and this opposition was not decreased by the experience 
that the lesser clergy seriously abused general excommunica- 
tion by employing it to advance their personal interests.^ 
Since the clergy clung so tenaciously to their miost effective 
weapon , the opposition to it finally resulted in a moderation 
of general excommunication into the local general interdict,® 
which, if equally unjust, was at any rate less severe. 

This moderation was a very gradual growth, produced as it 

^ (a) Migne, Pat. Lat.^ 54, col. 635. (b) Letters of St. Augustine, No. 
250, in Migne, Pat. Lat.^ 33, col. 1066-7. (c) Viollet, Hist, des Institu- 
tions Politiques et Administrative s de la France^ II, 294, n. 2. 

^ Cf. Howland, Interdict^ 13-18. 

^ Kober (XXI, 12) supposes that the local interdict may in part be 
traced to other forms of censure besides excommunication, such as cessatio 
a divinis for irregularity, pollution, honor, or any other cause whatsoever. 
Originally cessatio contained no idea of punishment; church services v^^ere 
merely suspended for a shorter or longer interval. Such a suspension, be- 
ing at first theoretically a voluntary act of all concerned, was recognized on 
all hands as perfectly legitimate. Practice nevertheless permitted the use 
of this censure at the command of the proper authority, the consent of the 
judges being merely constructive and not actual. This alteration intro- 
duced the idea of punishment and thus cessatio became a mild form of 
discipline, limited in extent to one church or one small locality. It is 
Kober's view that by a logical process this penalty was extended to cover 
larger areas, such as counties and duchies. If cessation of services in a 
church or a town is right, why not also in a city, a diocese, or a kingdom? 
Reasoning of this sort on the part of the authorities of the church doubt- 
less tended to have the effect for which Kober argues. It is nevertheless 
safe to say that the interdict was derived principally from general excom- 
munication; and that the expanding of the idea of cessatio confirmed the 
discipline thus derived. 



8 THE INTERDICT 

was by the struggle between the clergy to retain general ex- 
communication in its original form and the prelates to lessen 
the severity and injustice of the censure. Just when the first 
interdict, as we now understand the discipline, was promul- 
gated is a matter of unsatisfactory debate,^" for there is very 
little that really distinguishes one discipline from the other. 
The interdict is less severe in the following respects : some 
services were permitted, a man was not cut off from associa- 
tion with his fellow-men, innocent men might be shrived and 
after death at least be free from the injustice of this world. 
The interdict is always territorial ; that is, it affects all persons 
within specified boundaries, not because they are persons — for 
this would be general excommunication — but because they are 
within stated limits. This characteristic is perhaps due to the 
fact that the unity of the administrative districts, with their 
civil officials and their bishop ,^^ superadded to the Teutonic 
unity of the clan, tended to create a feeling of common re- 
sponsibility , which feeling the church easily turned into an 
acceptance of common punishment within those civil bound- 
aries. As a matter of fact, the interdict, from its possible 
beginning about 600 A. D. to its adoption by the papacy ,^''^ at 
the time of Leo IX, was under the supervision of the bishops, 
the spiritual heads of clearly-defined districts. After this 
adoption its effectiveness increased with the increase of papal 
power. 

These two characteristics, lessened severity and territoriality, 
are not decisive enough to make identification certain in every 
case. So intimately, in fact, is the interdict associated with 
other disciplines that it is difficult to determine just when the 
word is first used in its present meaning. The word interdict 

^^ (a) See above, n. 7. (b) Hinschius, IV, 715, 804-805; V, 19, n. 
13, — 20, n. I. 

^^ Schulte, Kirche7ist7'afen^ I, 655. " Jemehr die Theologie voran 
schritt, desto bluhender wurden die Irrlehren, besonders von Seiten ein- 
zelner Bischofe, mit ihnen die Excommunicationen, die sich schon im 2. 
und 3. Jahrhundert aiif ganze Diozesen erstreckten, well die Glaubigen 
regelmassig zum Bischofe hielten.'' 



ORIGIN AND THEORY g 

is derived from Roman law, and was first used in the sense of 
a prohibition."' The earliest cases cited as interdicts are 
called excommunications in the sources;^* and not, indeed, 
until the adoption of the word in a technical sense by the 
papal chancellery under Alexander II ^° is there any regular and 
consistent use of the word even by officials. ^^ In a canon of 
Innocent III ^^ the interdict is described as cessatio a divino- 
rum celebratione or a divinis^ and other writers of the same 
period fail to distinguish it from ban and excommunication.^^ 
The usage still varied in 1585.^^ 

Having shown that the emergence of the local interdict as 
a distinct discipline resulted from the opposition to general 
excommunication on the ground of its excessive severity and 
injustice, we will now examine the various theories that have 
been advanced in regard to the purpose of the interdict. It 
has been argued that the interdict was intended as an expres- 
sion of disapproval of someone's misconduct."'^ Instances in 

^2 Hinschius, V, 24. 

^^ P^or example : '^Quicunque interdicta despexerit . . . " J-L. (Jaffe's 
Regesta Fontijictim^ ed. Lowenfeld, Kaltenbmnner, and Ewald), 338a. 

^^ See the lists of interdicts given by Dr. Rowland and others. 

'^Hinschius, V, 22, n. 2. 

'^^ Ibid,, V, 21-25, notes. 

'^"^ Ibid., V, 522, n. 17. 

^^ (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 403. Parma, 1198. ** Cum civitas Parmensiset 
cives ejus excommunicationi subjecti fuissent , . . " (b) Teulet, lay- 
eites, I, 372, No. 973. Toulouse, 121 1. *' , . , quod Tolosanos cives 
. . . excommunicationis vinculo innodarunt." (c) Chron. B. Iterii, ad 
an. 1212, in Duples-Agier, Chroniq., 86. England, 1208. ** . . qui 
per sex annos cum tota Anglia fuerat excommunicatus . . . ". (d) 
Gall. Christ., X, ii, col. 61-62. Reims, 1235. '' . . . dicebat . . . 
quod . . omnes cives Remenses excommunicaverat." (e) See Hin- 
schius, V, 21-25, notes, for further information, (f) Miraeus, 0pp. Dipl., 
I, 97. Cited from Raumer, Gesch. Hohenst..^ VI, 163, n. 2. " Concedo, 
etiam, si inbannitur terra . " (g) Annal. Islandorum Regii ad an. 
1208, in Langebek, Scr. Rer. Da7i., Ill, 76. '* England i banni." 

^^Mansi, 34B, 1166. See also Hinschius, V, 522, n. 17. 

2° (a) Hinschius, IV, 805, n. i. Greg. Turon., Hist. Franc, V, 32, in 
MGSS, [Monumenia Gerfnaniae Historica, Scriptores), Rer. Merov. , I, 
224-225. A brawl in a church caused it to be deprived of services. 
What was the intention in suspending services is not stated; it may have 
been what Hinschius suggests, an expression of disapproval at desecratioD 



lO THE INTERDICT 

which this is true, and in which disapproval of an act is the 
sole purpose, are so rare as to be negligible. It has also been 
stated that the interdict was designed as a mode of propitiat- 
ing an offended saint. -^^ A forcible objection to this, however, 
is the fact that propitiation of saints is never mentioned in 
the sentence as the purpose of an interdict. The theory that 
the interdict was intended to warn the faithful from future 
transgressions is untenable because of lack of proof in the 
sources, an objection which applies with equal force to the 
view that the interdict was designed to secure the spiritual im- 
provement of the offender {poena medicinalis) , That this 
last-named purpose was sometimes present one may not deny, 
but it cannot be considered otherwise than incidental, in view 
of the evidence that another object was uppermost in the 

of the church. But, in the absence of any positive statement supporting 
the contention, another explanation, which Hes nearer at hand and is 
better sustained by the source, may at least be offered. The account of 
the brawl is followed by the statement that the matter was not settled until 
it came before the king. He submitted the case to the Bishop of Paris, 
who decided that the desecrators should give satisfaction for their fault, 
and should then be readmitted to the congregation. From this one may 
infer that securing satisfaction was the purpose of the cessation of services, 
though it cannot be positively established in this case because the time of 
re-opening the church is not mentioned, (b) Hinschius, V, 19, n. 13; 
Epp. Hinc, 3 and 4. Hincmar of Laon was summoned before Charles the 
Bald to answer for certain actions in 869. He left orders that an interdict 
should be laid on his diocese in case of his apprehension and detention. 
He was detained. Hinschius, in opposition to Kober, Hefele, Diimmler, 
and others, contends that this interdict was not a punishment but a reac- 
tion against a humiliation. The case under consideration is the strongest 
one known supporting Hinschius's contention. His assertion that this 
discipline was not a punishment is well taken, but it does not follow that 
it was primarily an expression of disapproval. Bishop Hincmar certainly 
intended to procure more than a public lamentation over his misfortune; 
manifestly he hoped that such an action on the part of his diocese would 
induce the king to release him. In other words, the interdict had the 
purpose of an administrative order. 

21 Hinschius, IV, 806. Hinschius's reference disproves rather than sup- 
ports his statement, for it certainly shows that propitiation of the saint was 
not the only purpose, as he himself admits in a foot-note (i). Indeed, the 
source says nothing about propitiation of a saint, but states that the inter- 
dict should go into effect "nisi cito ornamenta tabernaculi huius furata 
reduxeris . . . ", and implies that the return of the goods made the interdict 
unnecessary. It cannot be questioned that the purpose of this sentence 
was first of all to secure the return of stolen goods, and that other purposes, 
in this case inferential, were secondary. 



ORIGIN AND THEORY II 

minds of authorities laying interdicts.-' That punishment 
was a purpose of the interdict is more plausible than any of 
the motives given above. It is, according to a well-known 
writer, a test of an interdict.'^ His contention is, to say the 
least, debatable. If the interdict was a punishment, why were 
offenders obliged to do penance and sometimes undergo long- 
lasting effects, after the sentence of interdict was removed?^* 
And can a sentence which acts with equal severity on innocent 
and guilty be called a punishment? 

The best test of the purpose of an interdict is the motive of 
the judge who laid it ; and fortunately many sentences of in- 
terdict give some indication of these motives. Such sentences 
provide that they shall continue in effect until the offender 
makes proper reparation,^' which certainly indicates that the 

^^ Canonists have been much inchned to regard not only interdict but 
also excommunication of laymen as a censure, that is 2. poe7ia medicinalis^ 
intended to secure the betterment of the offender. That excommunication 
is used as a punishment is demonstrated by Hinschius (IV, 747, 748 and 
notes), who however admits that it may also be used as a censure. That 
the interdict was regarded as m.edicinal now and then appears from a letter 
of Innocent (Epp., X, 121) rebuking the Tem.plars for violating interdicts, 
" quod ex praesumptione hujusmodi contemnitur medicinalis poenae 
medela ". 

^^ This seems to be what Hinschius means (V, 19, n. 13), and, using 
punishment as a test, he contends that the interdict was not known before 
the middle of the tenth centuiy. All other writers accept a considerably 
earlier date for the origin of the interdict. 

2* For example, see the shriving of the murderers of the Bishop of Wiirz- 
burg, Appendix, case 69, in which case the penalties touched not only the 
criminals but even their heirs. See also the case of Oxford, Appendix, 
case 81. 

2^ An examination of sentences of interdict will show that they usually 
contain the phrase '* usque ad congruam satisfactionem " or words having 
a similar purport. For illustration of this see the letters referred to in 
Potth., 89, 91, 151, 277, 1160, 3814, 4736, 8572; J-L., 11891, 4536, 
5368. Notice particularly the case of Blois in the Appendix, case 77. In 
the very note in which Hinschius (V, 20, n. i) argues for the view that 
the interdict is a punishment, there appears a citation which militates 
against his argument. It is ordered that the interdict laid as a result of an 
attack on the church shall last " usque ad legitimam satisfactionem vel 
emendationem veniant et ipse episcopatus canonice sit redditns ecclesiae 
generali cui a deo est attributus et m . . . dicti rei de me Saulane episcopo 
absolutionem accipiant ". Punishment may have been the purpose of this 
sentence, but it is contrary to ordinary logic to believe it after reading the 
extract just given. The natural conclusion, and the one which explains 



12 THE INTERDICT 

purpose of the interdict is to secure compliance with demands 
made by the church on some offender against the welfare of 
society, church, or priesthood, or against the laws of faith and 
morals. It is compulsion by a form of passive resistance. It 
is not an aggressive act and not a punishment ; it is a defen- 
sive act by which the church withdraws from public service 
until society '' plays fair". Whether the sentence operates as 
a punishment, a corrective, or has any of the effects discussed 
above, is a matter of indifference ; the main purpose is the 
enforcing of church mandates. It is clear, then, that the in- 
terdict has the character of an administrative order, ^^ and its 
purpose resembles very strongly the purpose of an embargo, or 
an order of a board of health. These have in them no design 
to punish, though the party affected may suffer greatly ; neither 
are they designed to procure the betterment of the party af- 
fected ; they have a purpose beyond either, in that they aim 
to force some recalcitrant to yield to certain demands. The 
demands enforced by interdict had one of three general ob- 
jects : first, to promote the welfare of society, either as a whole 
or in some part ; second — and this is most frequently the ob- 
ject — to advance either the spiritual or the temporal interests 
of the church f^ third, to promote the welfare of ecclesiastical 
persons, either by protecting them from insult and injustice, 

everything perfectly well, is that the purpose of this interdict was to secure 
the restoration of properties and rights. I have found only one case 
(J-L., 5129, 5130) in which punishment was the only object of an inter- 
dict. See below, chap. II, n. 81. 

2^ Hinschius, IV, 804-805, hints at this when he declares that Kober and 
others have mistaken earlier disciplinary acts of the church for interdicts, 
when in reality they were only administrative orders. He holds that these 
are not interdicts on the ground that they are not punishments; see above, 
n. 24. It should be observed that, if the interdict is considered an admin- 
istrative order, the earlier cases are to be considered interdicts, as Kober 
regards them, though not punishments, as he held them to be. 

^"^ In this connection it is well to note that excommunication and personal 
interdict were used more frequently than the local interdict to procure ob- 
servance of the spiritual demands of the church. When severer measures 
or greater pressure were necessary to procure results the local interdict was 
put into requisition, which bears out the notion that the interdict is more 
truly a legal or administrative measure than is excommunication. 



ORIGIN AND THEORY 1 3 

or by advancing their personal or corporate interests. The 
protection of churchmen found justification in the canons, but 
the advancement of personal interests was generally regarded 
as an abuse of the interdict and was repeatedly prohibited by 
ecclesiastical authorities.^^ 

Since in a later chapter the actual effects of the interdict 
will be taken up, it seems proper to complete our theoretical 
study by considering the laws which regulate these effects. 
Procedure varied somewhat in different centuries ; an interdict 
of earlier times was in some respects more stringent than those 
of later times : hence there can be drawn few general conclu- 
sions. Broadly speaking, however, the local interdict de- 
prives the district specified of some or all of the following '?^ 
officia divina^ sacraments, and canonical burial. Officia di- 
vina (church services) include the offertory of the mass, ca- 
nonical hours, sacramentals, and any ecclesiastical function 
which can rightly be performed only by a priest. The prac- 
tice with regard to these services varies so considerably that it 
is necessary to take them up separately. Mass,^° being a cen- 
tral function in church life, was never allowed without some 
limitations. Even after permission was granted by Innocent 
III to celebrate enough of the mass (that is, the offertory) 
to consecrate the elements needed for viaticum , and after fur- 
ther modifications were granted by Gregory IX and Boniface 
VIII, the ringing of bells, open doors,^^ admittance of excom- 
municated or interdicted persons, and chanting were strictly 
prohibited. '^^ The service was to be recited in a low voice, 
and though that part of the mass which seemed necessary was 
allowed, the congregation could in no way share in it.^^ 

2^ With this bare statement of the objects for which the interdict was 
used, further discussion of the subject is postponed until the causes for in- 
terdicts are considered. 

29 Kober, XXI, 304f. 

80 (a) Hinschius, V, 525. (b) Kober, XXI, 309. 

3^ Kober, XXI, 309. Doors were closed, not locked. 

*2 (a) Hinschius, V, 524, n. 8. (b) Kober, XXI, 309. 

^ (a) Ibid, (b) Hinschius, V, 524, n. 9. 



14 THE INTERDICT 

Canonical hours are fixed times of the day given to prayer 
and devotion. In the middle ages these hours were vol- 
untarily observed by groups of clergymen who met in the 
churches for this purpose. According to earlier practice, 
such common observance ceased in time of interdict, and 
each clerk kept the hours privately. ^^ Time brought modera- 
tion. In the interdict of France, 1200, clerks were allowed 
to meet outside of churches for canonical hours, but no lay- 
men were permitted to be present. In England, 1208, the 
clergy were allowed to meet in churches to recite, without any 
ceremony, proper parts of the breviary ; but none of the con- 
gregation could be present. A canon of Innocent III fixed 
the rule regarding the hours for conventual churches. Accord- 
ing to the provisions of this, clerks in pairs or in threes were 
allowed, not to chant in chorus, but to read the hours in a 
voice so subdued as to be inaudible outside the church ; the 
doors were closed, and excommunicated and interdicted per- 
sons were excluded. '^^ Boniface VIII, among his numerous 
modifications of the interdict, decreed that canonical hours be 
kept, and that clerks be compelled to be present on pain of 
losing their daily distributions ; the rule relative to voice, pres- 
ence of laymen, and open doors was in no wise modified 
except for certain feast days.'^^ 

Sacramentals are rites analogous to the sacraments, but not 
included among them. They apply now to persons and now 
to things, such as exorcisms, consecrations, and benedictions." 
The most important of them are the churching of women,'^^ the 
benediction of marriage, of holy water, and of ecclesiastical 

s^Kober, XXI, 318, 319. 

^^C. II. X. de poenit. et remiss. 5. 38. References of this sort are of 
course to the Canon Law. 

^^ (a) C. Ult. de sent, excom. VI. 5. 11. (b) Hinschius, V, 527b. 

37 (a) Hinschius, V, 527. (b) Kober, XXI, 319. 

^^ Churching of women and benediction of holy water are usually spe- 
cifically prohibited, other sacramentals receiving no mention. This does 
not argue that the former only were denied, but rather that they, being 
most important and frequent among sacramentals, in a sense comprise the 
whole class. 



ORIGIN AND THEORY 15 

paraments. These were forbidden in time of interdict except 
on feast days.^^ Other ecclesiastical services performed by 
priests were prohibited unless otherwise stated in the formulae 
promulgating the interdicts. Preaching, however, not being a 
divinum officium,^^ was considered a perfectly lawful means of 
securing observance of the interdict, and of preventing the 
moral degeneracy of the laity ; the ringing of bells was per- 
mitted to announce sermons, and the angelus to invite Chris- 
tians to private prayer. 

Baptism, confirmation, penance, communion, extreme unc- 
tion, ordination, and marriage are the seven sacraments now 
generally recognized by the Catholic church. The sacraments 
were always forbidden in time of local interdict unless special 
permission to the contrary was given. The extreme severity 
of early interdicts included baptism among its prohibitions. 
The mitigation dates from the time of Hincmar, who granted 
baptism to children. Since it was not provided where this 
baptism of children was to occur, it is safe to assume that it 
took place in church. During the interdict of England ( 1 208) , 
however , it was the rule that baptisms were to occur in private 
houses. Boniface VIII granted baptism to adults, and as a 
consequence of this privilege it is likely that instruction of 
catechumens was allowed.*^ Confirmation, the complement 
of baptism, has been treated by canon law exactly as has bap- 
tism, and their history as affected by the local interdict is the 
same. 

Penance, though at first entirely prohibited, was very early 

^^ (a) Hinschius, V, 527, n. 9; I, 165. Laymen preached in earlier 
times, (b) Kober, XXI, 39-45. On the feasts of Christmas, Easter, 
Pentecost, and the Assumption of the Virgin, services with open doors and 
the ringing of bells were to be allowed, interdicted persons being admitted. 
But those who were responsible for the interdict were not allowed to ap- 
proach the altar, (c) Const. '' Ineffabile ", 1429, par. 3. Cf.Bullar. 
Rom., IV, 732. Martin V, in 1429, extended the privilege to include 
Corpus Christi Day and its octave. 

*^ (a) Cone. Frising., 1440, c. 25, in Hard., IX, 1291. (b) Hinschius, 
V, 528f. 

*i (a) Ibid,, V, 528, a. (b) Kober, XXI, 20-25. 



l6 THE INTERDICT 

granted to the dying.*^ A modification of Innocent III, rarely 
heeded by judges laying the sentence, extended penance to 
all with the provision that it must occur in the hall of the 
church or before the building, and be made in a voice so loud 
as to be heard by every one present/^ Boniface VIII char- 
acteristically allowed penance to all in the accustomed fash- 
ion, with the exception of excommunicates, those persons on 
whose account interdicts had been pronounced, and the parti- 
zans of interdicted persons.** The offertory of the mass has 
been discussed under the head of holy offices ; the sacrament 
of the mass, that is communion, was absolutely prohibited 
to all in good health. Exception was made only for those 
constructively in articulo mortis, such as persons about to 
start upon a long and dangerous sea-voyage , soldiers about to 
enter battle, mothers in heavy travail, and persons condemned 
to death. ^^ Extreme unction was always forbidden under all 
circumstances for all persons, clerical or lay, except those who 
had a special exemption.^^ Ordination is not separately men- 
tioned in decrees of interdict, and, since no exemption is 
made, it could neither be given nor received in interdicted 
districts.*^ 

Marriage is usually not mentioned in formulae of interdicts, 
and hence canonists generally have inclined to consider it for- 
bidden. The truth is that marriage itself was not forbidden ,^^ 
but the church refused to participate in it in any way. When 
the interdict was first used, marriage was not a sacrament of 
the church in the modern sense, and marriage without clerical 
assistance was valid, since the consent of the contracting 

*2 (a) Kober, XXI, 325-327. (b) Hinschius, V, 528, c. 

*^ Martene, Thesaurus, IV, 147. ** Hinschius, V, 528-529. 

*s (a) Ibid., V, 529, n. 8. (b) Kober, XXI, 329-330. 

*6(a) Hinschius, V, 530. (b) C. 11. X. de poenit. et remiss. 5. 38. 

^"^ Kober, XXI, 330-332. The only case in which an exception might 
arise would be if the number of priests were to become so small as to be 
insufficient to perform those rites which were allowed. But in such a case 
priests could be ordained elsewhere and imported. 

*8 (a) Kober, XXI, 531-533- (b) Hinschius, V, 530, (c) For bene- 
diction of marriage see above, notes 37-39. 



ORIGIN AND THEORY 1 7 

parties was the essential, and the benediction of the priest was 
a desirable though an unnecessary ceremony. If then the 
contracting parties observed the degrees of relationship fixed 
by the church, and violated no other rules, a marriage could 
legally take place in time of interdict without any ministration 
on the part of the church/'^ Usually even betrothals received 
no churchly sanction in time of interdict, and the dispensation 
by which Mauritius of Rouen allowed benediction of marriages 
during an interdict laid by him is entirely exceptional.^^ 
Rarely was marriage forbidden altogether, as it was by the 
Council of Limoges (1031) and in England (1208).^^ 

Christian burial was usually forbidden in interdicted dis- 
tricts. At the time of the quarrel between the two Hincmars 
apparently all burial was prohibited, which is the first record 
of such a privation. The modification by the Council of Li- 
moges " permitted canonical burial for clerks, beggars, stran- 
gers, and children under two years of age. Ivo of Chartres ex- 
empted only clerks and paupers from his prohibition of burial 
in the interdict laid upon Vendome.^^ Thereafter it became 
the common usage to deny burial in consecrated ground to all 
laymen who were not fortified by some privilege ; if the laity 
buried any dead, they were forbidden to imitate ecclesiastical 
rites of sepulture. In England (1208) all burial in the ground 
was prohibited. ^^ Because this procedure seemed too inhu- 
mane, because it was unsanitary, or because it tested the faith 
of the survivors too severely , moderation soon followed ; the 
method emiployed by the Archbishop of Rouen, Mauritius, 
who denied laymen burial only in consecrated ground, and 
prohibited the subterfuges by which all laymen had secured 
burial under the privileges extended to paupers, was adopted.^^ 

*^ Hard. Cone, X, 1726. *' Matrimonii sacramentum per verba de 
praesenti tempore interdicti administretur, benedictio tamen nuptialis con- 
ferri non potest." This was the ordinary practice of the church in time of 
interdict. 

^^d'Achery, SpiciL, III, 615. 

^1 (a) Du Cange, Glossar., under «* Interdictum ". (b) Goffridus Vin- 
docin., Epp., Kb. II, 16, in M-igaQ, Fat, Lat., 157, 83. 

^2 Inn. 0pp., IV, 190, No. 136. 



l8 THE INTERDICT 

Laymen who had the privilege specifically granting the right 
were permitted burial, but a privilege to celebrate officia on 
certain feast-days did not include the right of canonical 
burial.^^ 

Clergymen retained the right of ecclesiastical sepulture with 
some limitations from the time it was granted them at Limoges. 
Innocent III in his incomparable severity against England de- 
nied clerks burial in the ground ; deceased seculars might be 
enclosed in coffins and placed in a tree, or on the wall of the 
church- yard. ^* Later he sanctioned the procedure which al- 
lowed clerks to be inhumed, without any solemnities, in the 
cemetery or church, on condition that while alive they had ob- 
served the interdict. ^^ No bells were to be sounded and the 
service was to be a silent one, though the worldly pomp and 
show of the funeral train were not prohibited. ^^ 

We have in these few pages attempted a resume of the laws 
relating to interdict. Whoever desires further information can 
find ample and arid reading in any treatise on canonical law. 
From this point, happily, our course leads away from such 
treatises, and we take leave of them without regret, though we 
thankfully sum up what they have contributed to our conception 
of the theory of the interdict : nearly all the ministrations of the 
church ceased except on feast-days and in case of privileges ; 
preaching, baptism of infants, confirmation, penance of the 
dying, burial of the clergy, and matrimony without benedic- 
tion were usually permitted during the pontificate of Inno- 
cent III. 

^^ (a) The right of burial was not, as a rule, denied in uninterdicted dis- 
tricts to the dead brought from interdicted localities. Kober, XXI, 337. 
(b) Because burial was not considered a part of the officia divina. C. 3. 
X. de privileg. 5.33. **Quod si Templarii vel Plospitalarii ad ecclesiam 
venerint interdictam, nonnisi semel in anno ad ecclesiasticum officium ad- 
mittantur, nee tunc ibi sepehantur corpora defunctorum." 

^*Inn. 0pp., IV, 190, No. 136. 

" (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 23 (Potth., 1862). (b) Cone. Colon., 1270, 
c. 18, in Hard., VII, 834. 

^^ (a) Kober, XXI, 333-341. (b) Hinschius, V, 532. 



CHAPTER 11. 

The Laying of an Interdict. 

The purpose of this chapter is to show exactly how inter- 
dicts were laid. It will include an enumeration of the au- 
thorities who laid interdicts, and of the causes which produced 
them ; in addition, the processes of issuing, the right of appeal, 
the frequency, the duration, the extent, and the distribution of 
interdicts will be considered. A sentence pronounced by 
some ecclesiastical judge was interdictum ferendae sententiae \ 
one that resulted automatically from violation of specified 
canons of the church was interdictum latae sententiae. This 
form resulted from unusual offences, and followed if a prince 
refused papal legates or nuncios entrance into his dominions,^ 
if cities in any way assisted in the murder, maltreatment, or 
detention of a cardinal or failed to punish such an offender 
within a month,^ if the magistrates of a city or locality de- 
manded and sought to collect arbitrary taxes from churches or 
ecclesiastics,^ if the officials of a city in which the pope died 
hindered the observance of the rules fixed by the Council of 
Lyons for papal elections,* if clerks or prelates allowed strangers 
to do usurious business upon their lands, and remained unre- 
pentant for more than a month,^ and if cities or localities were 
responsible or showed any sympathy for the detention or other 
misuse of a bishop.^ 

Interdicts ferendae sententiae were promulgated by those 

^ C. unic. de consuet. Extrav. comm. i. i. 

^C. 5. de poenis VI. 5. 9. 

'C. 4. de cens. VL 3. 20. 

*C. 3. de elect. VL i. 6. 

^C. I. de usur. VL 5. 5. 

^ C. I. de poenis in Clement. 5.8. 

(19) 



20 THE INTERDICT 

church authorities whose official capacity was derived jure 
divino, that is, from inherent authority, or from the powers 
given by law to incumbents of specified offices, or from a tem- 
porary delegation of power by some sufficient authority. "^ The 
pope and bishops laid interdicts by virtue of inherent author- 
ity. It follows by corollary that councils and synods, being 
conventions of bishops, had like authority. The pope's au- 
thority to interdict extended over the whole church ; he exer- 
cised this power personally,^ or instructed legates,^ bishops,^^ 
chapters ,^^ abbots, or any lesser officials ,^^ to pubHsh a sentence 
in his stead. Episcopal interdicts were pronounced by the 
archbishops or bishops themselves or by their vicars upon 

7 Kober, XXII, 3-4. 

^ (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 143 (Potth., 3501). Narni, 1208. "... nos 
[Innocent] . . . civitatem ipsorum . . . subjicimus interdicto . . . '* 

(b) Inn. Ill, Epp., X, 143 (Potth., 3205). Lands of Gallus, 1207. 
'•' . . . sententias excom. et interdict! latas auctoritate nostra . . . '* 

(c) J-L., 4793 (3557). (d) J-L., 5685 (4259)- (e) J-L., 6294. (f) 
J-L., 6677. (g) J-L., 6981 {5095). (h) J-L., 7144. (i) J-L., 11489 
{1^7^)^ (3) J-L., 12755. (k) J-L., 13710(8813). (1) J-L., 13628. 
(m) J-L., 16357. (nj J-L., 16765. (o) Leo Marsicanus, Chron. Mon. 
Cas., lib. II, c. "jS, in MGSS,, VII, 683. (p) Mansi, Cone, XXI, 
67-70. (q) Diceto, in Rec. [Recueil des Historiens des Gaules), XIII, 
183. Cf. Hinschius, V, 25, n. 7. (r) Pfliigk-Httg., Acta, III, 317, 
332-333. (s) J-E., 3012, 3046, 3089, 3090, 3304. Laid by John VIII. 
(t) J-L., 4536, laid by Alexander II; J-L., 5368, laid by Urban II; 
J-L., 8186 (5831), laid by Innocent II. (u) Jaffe, Bibl. Rer. Ger., II, 
108, laid by Adrian IV. (v) Ryccardus de S. Germ., Chron. ad an. 121 1, 
in MGSS., XIX, 334, laid by Innocent III; etc., etc. 

^ (a) J-L., 7202 (5208). (b) J-L., 9369 (6510). Rowland, case No. 
71. (c) J-L., 11677 (7801). A threat, (d) J-L., 11847. (e) J-L., 
15704. (0 J-L., 5517 (4129). Rowland, case No. 43. (g) J-L., 
6926 (5062). Rowland, case No. 58. (h) J-L., 8647 (6093). Local 
particular. 

^0 (a) J-L., 5746. Rowland, case No. 48. (b) J-L., 8540 (6040). 
Rowland, case No. 66. (c) J-L., 10479 (7078). Rowland, case No. 
73. (d) J-L-j 17434. (e) Potth., 1269. France, 1200. (f) W. 
Canterb., Vita S. Thomae, in Mat. Rist. Becket {Rolls Series), I, 71. 
(g) J-L-, 9554 (6630), 11254 (7512). Personal, (h) Inn. Ill, Epp., 
I, 24 (Potth., 29). (i) Inn. Ill, Epp., VII, 163 (Potth., 2338). (j) 
Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 87 (Potth., 3418). (k) Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 98 
(Potth., 4798;. (1) Hist, gen. de Languedoc, IX, 190-192 and note. 

11 (a) J-L., 14011. (b) J-L., 17128 (10479). 

12 Inn. Ill, Epp., XIV, 126 (Potth., 4332). The Abbot of St. Victor 
and others were authorized to lay interdict. 



THE LAYING OF AN INTERDICT 21 

direct command from them ; ^^ ^* ^^ the confirmation of the 
pope ^^ was often sought for these interdicts and was sometimes 
granted. The interdicting power of the bishops had several 
limitations : First, it was limited by the boundaries of the 
bishoprics with the following exception : if a part of an inter- 
dicted city or its suburbs lay in another jurisdiction, the 
bishop's authority extended into the neighboring jurisdiction 
to the extent of that city.^^ A special grant from Innocent III 
extended the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Metz over other 
dioceses ; ^^ in this case, however, the power was delegated 
and not strictly episcopal. An archbishop's jurisdiction was 
limited to his own diocese ; he could put one of his bishops 
under personal interdict, but this power was taken away from 
him by the Council of Trent ^^ and given to the synod. The 
order of the Archbishop of Milan to the Bishop of Lodi to put 

^3 (a) J-L., 6483. (b) J-L., 9319 (6472). Howland, case No. 70. 
(c) J-L., 10827 (7260). (d) J-L., 1 1 197. (e) Potth., 10020. (f) 
Lambert v. Hersfeld, Annal., in MGSS., V, 21 iff. (g) J-L., 17016. 
(h) J-L., 17569 (10657). 

^*(a) Greg. Turon, Hist.y VIII, 31. Howland, case No. 8. Kober, 
XXI, ^-%, considers this the first clear case of interdict, (b) J-L., 8221 
(5816). (c) Inn. Ill, Epp., VIII, 213 (Potth., 2675). (d) J-L., 8940 
(6253). 

15(a) Prov. Cone. Trev., 1238, c. 3, in Mansi, XXIII, 479. «^ Si 
raptor excom. fuerit, vel terra ejus interdicta ab ordinario unius diocesis 
. . . '* (b) Cone. Mexican. Prov., 1585, lib. II, tit. VII, c. 5, in 
Aguirre, Cone, Hisp., VI, iii. '* Itidem interdicitur, ne Officiales et 
Ju dices Metropolitan orum et excom., suspensionis et interdicti censuras 
decernant contra Episcopos Suffraganeos.'' 

16(a) J-L., 9975 (6834). (b) Mat. Hist. Becket {R. Ser.), VII, 
477-478. (c) Chron. VezeHacense ad an. 1250, in Labbe, Nova Bibl.^ 
I, 397-398. (d) J-L, 9343 (6487). (e) Inn. HI, Epp., XII, 144 
(Potth., 3844). (f) Gest. Hen. II {R, Ser,), I, 119. Confirmation is 
sought, (g) Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 98 (Potth., 4798). Confirmation is 
sought. 

i^(a) C. 17. de sent, excom. VI. 5. 11. (b) Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat. 
15415, fol. 232, col. 4, Cause xxii°. '* Si civitas, castrum aut villa subi- 
ciantur eeclesiastico interdicto, illorum suburbia et continentia edificia 
. . . intelliguntur interdicta." 

i^nn. Ill, Epp., XV, 187 (Potth., 4610). This bull gives Conrad, 
Bishop of Metz and imperial chancellor, the privilege of using ecclesiasti- 
cal censures against malefactors of the church in any diocese, if the resi- 
dent bishop on request does not do his duty. 

19 Kober, XXII, 6-2>, 



22 THE INTERDICT 

the city of Lodi under an interdict was unique and contrary to 
accepted laws.^*^ Second, canon law required the bishops to 
secure the assent of their chapters before issuing an interdict \ ^^ 
this law was not heeded by the bishops and the rule was abro- 
gated. Third, upon papal order it sometimes happened that 
a bishop lost his prerogative of laying interdicts unless he had 
permission from the pope or his authorized agent.^^ Inter- 
dicts by council or synod were few. The decision of the 
Council of Dijon in 1197 to put France under an interdict ^^ 
was merely confirmatory of a papal order, and was doubtless 
designed to give the threat an appearance of unanimity on the 
part of the clergy. Interdicts laid by provincial synods were 
more frequent than those laid by general councils. ^^ 

With the growth of the church there appeared a number of 
authorities who laid interdicts by virtue of the position they 
occupied. ^^ Before the Council of Trent legates and nuncios 
had unlimited power to lay interdicts within their jurisdictions ; 
that council deprived them of the right ^^ and they could act 
only in pursuance of a special mandate of the pope — that 
is, they had only delegated authority. Originally archdeacons 
and archpresbyters had no right to lay interdicts except on 
delegated authority ; but in the course of time they developed 
a jurisdiction which was recognized by the church until the 
Council of Trent took it from them.^^ Cardinals interdicted 

20J-L., 14801. 

'1 (a) C. I. X. de excess, praelat. 5.31. (b) C. 4. 5. X. de his. quae 
fiunt a praelat. 3.10. 

22 Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 137 (Potth., 151). 

^^ Lebeuf, Mem, Diocise d^Auxerre, I, 360-361. 

2* fa) Rec, X, 412. Howland, case No. 17. (b) Richenis, Hist, in 
MGSS., Ill, 634, 635, 664. Howland, case No. 16. (c) Mansi, Cone, 
XIX, 865, and Chron. S. Vincentii Vulturnens. , in Mur. , J^er. It, Scr,, 
I, ii, 514. This case is called excommunication in the source, but is very 
clearly an interdict. Cf. Hefele, Conciliengesch. ^ IV, 792. (d) Annal. 
Benevent. ad an. iioo, in MGSS,, III, 183. (e) Mansi, Cone, XXII, 
9, c, 2. 

35 Kober, XXII, 8ff. 

'6 (a) J^L., 15704. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 461 (Potth., 473)- 

" (a) C. 54. par. 4. X. de elect, i. 6. (b) C. 3. X. de poenis 5. 37. 



THE LAYING OF AN INTERDICT 23 

the churches the titles of which they bore.^^ Heads of mon- 
asteries,^^ though they had the right to use local interdict over 
places subject to their jurisdiction, rarely exercised this power, 
and thereby avoided conflict with their bishops. Their powers 
being mainly over regulars, they usually contented themselves 
with the personal interdict. In some monasteries the brethren 
seem to have shared the right of interdicting with their 
heads ,^° or to have had an independent right. There is evi- 
dence that even deans ^^ and prevots^^ issued interdicts. The 
majority of canonists agree that a priest cannot lay an inter- 
dict ; occasionally a priest laid a personal interdict, but even 
this power rested on an unusual custom of the parish or upon 
special authorization from a bishop. 

Chapters laid interdicts under two conditions. ^^ First, they 
had independent jurisdiction over the property which they 
held, and in matters touching these possessions they claimed 
the right to lay interdicts. But, as a rule, they had little oc- 
casion to use this right, for they found that a local particular 
interdict laid on their cathedral was adequate to prevent the 

(c) C. 3. X. de offic. jud. ordinar. i. 31. This gives the archpresbyter 
the right to lay interdict, (d) Marlot, Hist, de Reiins^ III, 623. An 
archdeacon laid an interdict during an archiepiscopal vacancy. 

28 Kober, XXII, 8ff. 

29(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., XV, 144 fPotth., 4551). An interdict by the 
abbot of La Charite. (b) Arch, depart, de I'Oise (Beauvais), H. 2143, 
(Inventaire de titres de S. Corneille de Compiegne.) This is a bull of In- 
nocent III addressed to the ecclesiastics of Compiegne, commanding them 
under pain of excommunication to observe the interdicts and censures 
which the abbot of S. Corneille might issue, (c) J-L., 1 1582 (7743). 

^•^ J-L., 1 255 1. The Brethren of Malmesbury are allowed to use inter- 
dict. 

^^Cartulaire de Montieramey, No. 249, in ColL des princip, Cartul. du 
diocese de Troyes, 252. 

^2 Marlot, Hist, de Reims^ I, 361. This is an interdict of Reims by the 
prev6t Miles de Nanteuil. 

^^ (a) Rec, XV, 876. The canons of Soissons claimed the right to lay 
interdict, (b) J-L., 16303. (c) C. 5. X. de consuet. 1.4. The chapter 
of Le Mans claimed the power of interdicting the city, (d) C. 23. X. de 
verb, signif. 5. 40. The canons of Chartres placed an interdict on the 
possessions of the Countess of Blois. (e) J-L., 10372 (7027), 13244, 
13597- Chapter is given the right to lay interdict, (f) Marlot, Hist, dc 
Reims, III, 572. An interdict is laid by a chapter. 



24 THE INTERDICT 

retention of the chapter's revenues ,^^ to punish an offender 
against the chapter ,^^ and to resist successfully a bishop. ^^ 
Sometimes chapters even compelled bishops to admit that 
cessation of services in the cathedral obliged all conventual 
and parochial churches to a partial observance of such an 
interdict. In Reims, for instance, the canons secured a sin- 
gular arrangement from their archbishop : he agreed that, when 
for any good cause the services of the cathedral were suspended, 
services in all other churches should cease .'^^ The abuses of 
this independent power caused various limitations to be placed 
upon chapters.^^ Second, in case of an episcopal vacancy the 
chapter exercised the functions of a bishop and laid inter- 

^* (a) Gall. Christ.^ XI, 5of, and Chron. Rothoma^. ad an. 121 1, in 
Labbe, Nova Bibl., I, ^72. The chapter of Rouen interdicted the cathe- 
dral because the archbishop retained revenues belonpn^ to the canons, 
(b'^ Cone. Mogunt. , 1261, c. 19, in Harzheim, Cone. Germ., Ill, 6oof. 

'^ (a) Crinc. apud Vallem Guidonis, 1242, c. 6, in Hard., VII, 349. 
(b) C. 2. X. de his, quae fiunt a major part, capit. 3. 1 1, (c) Cone. 
Lugd. II, 1274, c. 17, in Hard., VII, 712. (d) C. 2. de offic. ordinar. 

VI. I. 16. 

S6 (a) Cone. Later., 1215, c. 7, in Hard., VII, 523. (b) C. 13. X. 
de offic. jud. ordinar. i. 31. (c) Cone. Compediens., 1277, in Hard., 

VII, 71^1. The bishops unite to resist aggression of the chapters. Cd) 
C. 8. de offic. ordinar. VI. i. 16. Boniface VIII found conditions result- 
ing from use of interdicts by chapters against bishops so bad that he re- 
served to the apostolic see the decision in such matters, (e) Marlot, 
Hist, de Reims, III, 573, 821-823, No. 182. 

3"^ fa) Ibid., 806, 773. Cf. Archives Adm. Reims, I, 431. (b) Bibl. 
de Cambrai, MS. No. 1151 (1028), fol. LXV. «« . . . s6rie d'actes sur 
les rapports du chapitre cathedral avec I'eveque et avee les autres eglises 
de Cambrai, notamment sur son droit de faire suspendre les services divins 
dans toutes les Eglises de laville." Cited from Caial. gen. des MSS. des 
Bibl. Publ. de France, Cambrai, p. 445. 

^^ (a) C. 2. X. de his, quae fiunt a major part, eapit. 3. ii. An inter- 
dict should be laid only by all the canons with the consent of the bishop, 
(b) Cone. Lugd. II, 1274, c. 17, in Hard., VII, 712. This decrees 
that in case a chapter lavs an interdict it must issue a statement containing 
the cause, (c) Arch, depart, de I'Aisne (Laon), G. i, cited in Inventaire 
sommaire . . . , III, I. ** Le Pape Innocent III s'addressant ^ 
R[enaud], ^v^que de Noyon, le blame d'avoir autorise son chapitre ^ 
lancer I'excommunication et I'interdit et decide que le droit d'excom. et 
interdit ne peut 6tre exerce que par les ev^ques." Aside from the fact 
that Renaud was not bishop of Noyon during the pontificate of Innocent 
III, this statement is difficult to reconcile with the practice of the time in 
which it purports to have been issued. 



THE LAYING OF AN INTERDICT 



25 



diets. ^^ The Council of Trent made it a rule that, within 
eight days after the death of a bishop, the chapter should 
elect a vicar to perform episcopal functions ; hence the capit- 
ular vicar could lay interdict in episcopal vacancy. The in- 
quisition could lay an interdict,^^ and the state also appears to 
have had some share in the power of laying interdicts. Louis 
IX agreed to use temporal power to enforce interdicts only 
when the state had shared in issuing the sentence, or could 
see some good reason for confirming it." Philip VI of France, 
who had been empowered by Pope Benedict XII to order an 
interdict laid on Flanders, declared that neither he nor his 
heirs should exercise the authority .^^ If a vidimus by Pierre 
Bornihores of a bull of Gregory IX is correctly understood, 
the consuls of Perpignan thought of imposing an interdict on 
the church of St. John.*^ However, instances of the use of 
interdict by civil authorities are rare.^* A review of the fore- 
going paragraphs must impress one with the fact that, though 
many persons possessed the power of laying interdicts/^ it was 
not by chance but by clear grant from proper authorities. 
/ The causes for interdicts, notwithstanding their number and 

^^ Chapters also promulgated interdicts upon authority delegated by a 
bishop. For example, the Bishop of Cesena granted his chapter this 
power, Thomassin, III, lib. II, c. 23, n. 7. 

*^Lea, Inquisition of Spain, I, 355, 420, 456, 482, 485, 487, 495, 
514, 519, 523. 

*^ Matt. Par., 133 f., cited by Raumer, Gesch. Hohenst.^ VI, 162, n. 9. 

*^ Diericx, Mhn, de Gana^ App., 109, n. I. ''Philippe . . . Savoir 
faisons a tous presens et avenir . . . ne puissons jamais faire constraindre 
ledict conte de Flandres, le pays de Flandres, ou les personnes diceluy 
pays par sentenches de suspencions, d'excommunication, dinterdycte [5zV] 
ou de dessaroicion." 

*3Bibl. de Perpignan, MS. No. 78, i^ Cited from Cat. gen, des Bibl. 

Publ. de France^ Perpignan, p. 109. *' Vidimus par Pierre Bornihores 

. . . d'une bulle de Gregoire XI au sujet de I'interdit de I'eglise de S. 

Jean, que les consuls de Perpignan avaient voulu imposer." August, 1376. 

**Viollet, Instit. Politiq, de France, II, 298, n. 2. 

*^ Occasionally it is not clear exactly what authority laid the interdict. 
For example, J-L. , 4854 (3616), in which Ro7?ia7ia ecclesia is the author- 
ity; and J-L., 12552 (8384), in which the '* church of Rouen" appears 
as the authority laying the interdict. 



26 THE INTERDICT 

complexity, fall naturally into three categories : conditions 
harmful to society, conditions harmful to the church, and the 
necessities of ecclesiastics. A few interdicts were issued on 
account of conditions which were harmful to society as a whole 
or to some part of society. In 1031 the Council of Limoges 
endeavored to secure observance of the Peace of God by 
threatening the robber-barons with interdict if they continued 
their depredations.*^ Bishop Alduin of Limoges pronounced 
*' excommunication '* over his diocese because of the devasta- 
tions by certain bandits,*^ presumably living within the limits 
of his bishopric. Tournaments, because they hindered the 
taking of the cross, were prohibited for a period in the time 
of Innocent III under threat of excommunication and inter- 
dict ; nor was a relaxation to ensue until the offender had fore- 
sworn tournaments for the time specified.** It may well be 
questioned whether the unfortunate condition of society was 
the only motive that led to the threat of interdict in the above 
cases. It is possible that the desire to serve the church was a 
stronger motive than the desire to serve society. That, how- 
ever, is a question of little significance, since instances of 
such occasions for interdicts are so rare as to substantiate 
neither view.*^ The dearth of instances in which the interdict 
was relied upon to improve the lot of humanity is no reproach 
to the church, for there were other means and agencies which 
were more effective for that purpose, and a function so dis- 
tinctly temporal was properly left to the temporal power. 

Instances in which districts were deprived of all ecclesiasti- 
cal ministrations for the benefit of states , cities , or other politi- 
cal unities are somewhat more frequent. London and the 
lands of the barons who opposed King John after he repudi- 

*^ Du Cange, Glossar.^wxiA^x " Interdictum '\ Careful distinction be- 
tween interdict and excommunication must be urged at this point. Ex- 
communication was used long before 103 1 to aid society. 

*' Ademar, Chron. ad an. 994, in Rec.^ X, 147. 

*8Gesta, c. 84. Cf, Inn. Ill, Epp., IX, 197; X, 74. 

*^ It should be observed that both of the cases mentioned above are 
merely threats of interdict and not actual sentences. 



THE LAYING OF AN INTER DICl 



27 



ated Magna Charta were put under interdict.^^ The Lombard 
cities were disciplined for reforming their league with the de- 
sign of resisting Frederick II ; ^^ Louis VIII was warned to de- 
sist from the seizure of any English possessions ; ^^ the English 
magnates opposing Henry III were threatened ; ^^ the citizens 
of Brindisi and others opposing Walter of Brienne were given 
a month to return to fidelity j^* Albricus, a knight, agreed that 
if he vexed the inhabitants of a stated locality he was to be 
excommunicated and his lands interdicted ; ^^ and the marau- 
ders of Vallemagne were pursued wherever they went by an 
ambulatory interdict. ^^ In one instance, an attempt was made 
to secure justice for an individual. King John had refused for 
more than eight years to pay the jointure of Berengaria, Rich- 
ard's queen, and Innocent III, tiring of his unavailing efforts 
to secure a settlement, finally threatened certain manors and 
honors with special interdict, in spite of the fact that they 
already lay under general interdict. This attempt to aid 
Berengaria proved ineffectual.^^ 

Second, the interdict was most frequently used to advance 
the interests of the church. These were both temporal and 
spiritual. It has been indicated above why this form of disci- 
pline was not common in those matters in which the state had 
undeniably a primary interest. Besides, there were temporal 
affairs in which the church had quite as great an interest as its 
interest in spiritual affairs. Under its spiritual interests this 
study groups those matters which relate to morality or faith. 
Violations of those rules which the church has laid down for 

^^ (a) Florence of Worcester (Eng. Hist. Soc. ), 317. (b) Reinerus, 
Annal. ad an. 1216, in MGSS,, XVI, 674. 

51 Huillard-Breholles, Historia Diplom, , II, ii, p. 643. 

"Potth., 7913. 

^ (a) Rymer, Foed., I, i, 103. (b) Potth., 8136. 

^Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 191 (Potth., 2064). 

^5 Cartulaire de Montieramey, No. 249, in CoL des princip, Cariul. de 
Troyes, p. 252, No. 249. 

wj-L., 15247. 

5"^ (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 223, 224 (Potth., 3618, 3619; cf. 997, 998). 
(b) Dict» Natl, Biog.j under ** Berengaria.'* 



28 THE INTERDICT 

the purity and orthodoxy of its members were finally ^^ provo- 
cative of the local interdict. Most famous among the inter- 
dicts resulting from a violation of the law of marriage is that 
of France, pronounced because Philip Augustus repudiated 
Ingeborg.^^ Another case is that of Portugal and Leon, laid 
because of the incestuous marriage of the King of Leon with 
the daughter of the King of Portugal. ^^ On that occasion the 
effect of the discipline did not prove lasting, for presently the 
same ruler of Leon married a princess of Castile to whom he 
was related within the prohibited degrees ; his kingdom was 
interdicted , and the realm of Castile ^^ was threatened with a 
like calamity, unless its rulers rendered efficacious service in 
dissolving the offensive marriage. 

Besides improper marriages various other indecencies pro- 
duced interdicts. Gregory of Tours tells that the nuns of 
Poitiers by their immoral living gave provocation for an inter- 
dict (called excommunication) .^^ Assisi was interdicted for a 
profanation of the rites connected with the translation of St. 
Francis. ^^ The murder of Conrad, Bishop of Wlirzburg, 
brought an interdict on the possessions of all the guilty and of 
those who showed them favor ; ^* the murder of Becket deter- 
mined the pope to interdict all the lands of Henry 11.^^ Sim- 
ony seems to have caused an interdict to fall on a monastery 

^^ It was more common to use excommunication or personal interdict. 
The local interdict was reserved for those cases in which milder correctives 
of the church had failed and for cases of flagrant sin. 

^^ See Appendix, case 57. Interdict on France, 1200. 

eoGesta, c. 58. 

^^ See Appendix, case 3. Interdict on Leon and Castile. 

®2 Greg. Turon., Hist. Franc. ^ IX, 39ff.; X, I5ff. Rowland, case No. 9. 

cspotth., 8572. 

6* Inn. Ill, Epp,, V, 155 (Potth., 1813). 

65(a) Mat. Hist. Becket {R. Ser.), IV, i65f. (b) W. Newburgh, 
Hist. Rer. Angl.,lib. II, c. XI (i?. Ser.), I, 128-129. Murder of Raymond 
Trencavel. (c) J-L., 17128 (10479). Murder of Berengar, Archbishop 
of Tarragona, (d) Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 39 (Potth., 1160). Bishop of 
Bellimo killed in battle, (e) Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 26 (Potth., 3324). 
Murder of Pierre Castelnau. (f) Mun. Acad. Oxon. {R. 5^r.), i9of. 
Cf. Boase, Oxford^ 90-91. Murder of Oxford scholars. 



THE LAYING OF AN INTERDICT 29 

of the diocese of Reims,*^ and simoniacal practices on the 
part of Philip I of France caused him to be threatened with 
interdict. ^^ Pollution ^^ or the burial of an excommunicate in 
a church was regarded as a sufficient reason for interdicting 
the locality concerned. The failure to observe church holi- 
days was sometimes deemed a sufficient occasion for inter- 
dicts, as appears from a papal order prohibiting the excom- 
munication or interdict of those vassals and servants of the 
Cistercians who worked on days which others considered holi- 
days. ^^ The presence of heretics in at least one instance caused 
an interdict to be threatened. ^^ 

Much more frequent than the interdicts just discussed were 
those which resulted from an infringement upon the temporal 
interests of the church. It appeared in the consideration of 
the purposes of the interdict that it was an administrative 
order, designed principally to furnish the church the necessary 
means of forcing aggressors to come to terms. Resistance to 
the church from within could be so adequately met by the 
weapons of suspension, excommunication, degradation, and 
the like that the offences of ecclesiastics were rarely the occa- 
sion for a local interdict; resistance to the church from with- 
out, however, demanded a stronger and a more formidable 
weapon, and this was found in the local general interdict, 
which had as its special function the protection of ecclesiasti- 
cal property. So strictly did the church guard her property- 
rights that the mere presence of stolen goods,'^ or of rob- 

^^ J-L., 4548. Local particular. Cited by Hinschius, V, 21-22, n. 2. 

^M-L., 4807(3571). 

^^ (a) Andreae, Tract, Vtiliss. (MS.) Tricesimus quartus. ''Cum 
ecclesia cum sanguine vel semine polluitur tunc est a jure ecclesia inter- 
dicta usque ad reconciliationem et in ea non est celebrandum." (b) 
Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat., 15415 (Berengar Fredoli), fol. 232, col. 4. Beren- 
gar, among his causes for which churches, localities, etc., may be polluted 
and hence interdicted, says (Cause IX°.), *' Si emissione humani seminis 
polluantur . . ." (c) Interdicts for pollution were usually local particular. 

«9 J-L., 1 385 1 (8918). Personal interdict (?). 

'M-L., 15461. 

'^ (a) Prov. Cone. Trev., 1238, c. 2, in Mansi, Cone, XXIII, 479. If 



30 



THE INTERDICT 



bers,'^ resulted in an interdict for a locality. Very early ^^ and 
very often ^* did the church protect its own by means of inter- 
dicts ; they were issued on account of the seizure of a church/^ 
a castle/^ a villa," relics,'^ episcopal regalia,'^ and ecclesiasti- 
cal paraments.^^ The monks of Monte Casino were robbed of 
property left in their charge for safe-keeping, and the result of 
their negligence was an interdict on the church of St. Benedict 

anyone brings stolen goods into a parish, **per totam illam parochiam 
cessetur a divinis, dum ibi praeda et praedo et praedae emtor fuerit**. 
(b) Cartul. de Tabbaye de Basse-Fontaine, in Col. des princip. Cariul. de 
Troyes, p. 142, No. 106. " Villas, autem, in quibus bona praedictorum 
fratrum per violentiam detenta fuerint, quamdiu ibi sint, interdicti sententie 
supponatis." 

^^ Cartul. de la Chapelle-aux- Planches, No. 41, in Col. des princip. 
Cartul. de Troyes, p. 41, No. 41. ** Le Pape [Innocent III] ordonne de 
mettre en interdit tons les lieux o^ demeureront les violateurs et les enva- 
hisseurs des biens de I'Ordre [de Premontre] jusqu'a restitution ..." 

^^ (a) Greg. Turon., In Glor. Mart., c. 78. Rowland, case No. 6. Cf, 
Hinschius, IV, 805, n. 2. The date of this censure was about 541 A. D. 

(b) Greg. Turon., In Glor. Confess., c. 70. Rowland, case No. 7. Cf, 
Hinschius, IV, 805, n. 2. Date, about 565 A. D. (c) Vita S. Eligii, I, 
30, in d'Achery, Spicil., II, 87. Cf. Hinschius, IV, 805, n. 2. Date, 
before 659 A. D. 

^*(a) J-L., 5517 (4129). Rowland, case No. 43. (b) J-L., 6781 
(4959)j 6564 (4847). Rowland, case No. 56. (c) J-L., 6987 (5098). 
Rowland, case No. 59. (d) J-L., 6948 (5078). Threat of a local par- 
ticular interdict, (e) J-L., 7125 (5162), 6925 {5061). Rowland, case 
No. 60. (f) J-L., 8940 (6253). (g) J-L., 9287. Rowland, case No. 
68. (h) J-L., 1 1254 (7512). This may be a personal interdict, (i) 
J-L., 15704. (j) Inn. Ill, Epp., II, 59 (Potth., 683). (k) Inn. Ill, 
Epp., VI, 73 (Potth., 1919). (I) Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, ^^j (Potth., 3814). 
(m) Lebeuf, Mem. Diocese d'Auxerre, I, 370-372. (n) Inn, III, Epp., 
XII, 120 (Potth., 3843). (o) Inn. Ill, Epp., XII, 80 (Potth., 3777). 
(p) Inn. HI, Epp., XVI, 98 (479S). 

^^(a) Cone. Poitiers, 1078, in Mansi, Cone, XX, 498. (b) J-L., 71 14. 

(c) J-L., 9884. This is a threat; it may be a personal interdict. 

^*(a) J-L., 6926 (5062), 6927, 6928, 6929. Rowland, case No. 58. 
(b) MittareUi, Annal. Camald., IV, App., 255. ** . . .in terra eorum 
interdicti sentent. promulgarit, eo quod ipsi quoddam castrum cum tota 
curte . . . occuparant." 

"J-L., 5157 (3884). Rowland, case No. 37. 

'sj-L., 11561. 

■^^Chron. Rothomag. ad an. 1233, in Labbe, Nova Bibl.y I, 376. ** In 
mense Julii saisivit dominus Rex Ludovicus junior RegaUa domini Rotho- 
magensis Archiepiscopi." 

®^ See above, n. 73 c. 



THE LAYING OF AN INTERDICT 31 

at Monte Casino.^^ A mere attack on property ,^'^ damage or 
even disturbance of ecclesiastical possessions,^'^ was ample 
cause for interdict; for example, because the Count of Nevers 
placed many restraints on the monks of Vezelai, and finally 
blockaded their monastery,^* his lands were interdicted. 
Quarrels about title to property ^^ occasionally brought inter- 
dicts upon the litigants opposing the church, as was the case 
in the dramatic interdict of Auxerre, which grew out of the 
dispute between Peter of Courtenay and Bishop Hugh Noyers.^^ 
Unjust taxation of church property ^^ and refusal to pay tithes^^ 
or money due the church ^^ were prevented by the judicious 
use of the interdict. Florence was deprived of services for 
not compelling her ruined bankers to compound for a deposit 
made by the papal legate, the Cardinal of Santa Sabina ; ^^ and 
Innocent III threatened Cyprus with an interdict to compel 
the payment of tithes. ^^ Still other interdicts were caused by 

^^ J-L., 5129 (3859)9 5130 (3860). This local particular interdict is a 
punishment. See above, chap. I, n. 25. 

82(a) J-L., 6441. (b) J-L., 8986 (6280), 9545 (6624), 9784 (6748), 
10066 (6878). (c) J-L., 10372 (7027). (d) J-L., 12551. (e) J-L., 
13186. (f) J-L., 13244. (g) J-L., 16226. (h) J-L., 16820 (10356). 
(i) J-L., 17569 (10657). (j) Marlot, HisU de Reims^ III, 773. (k) Inn. 
Ill, Epp., I, 137 (Potth., 8137). 

^^(a) J-L., 8647 (6093). This is a local particular interdict, (b) 
J-L., 8772 (6163). Threat, (c) J-L., 8986 (6280). Threat, (d) J-L., 
9554 (6630). (e) J-L., 10095. Threat, (f) J-L., 13597. (g) Meiller, 
Reg, der Sahb. Erzbisch.^ p. 170, No. 7 (Potth., 1250). (h) QuelL Gesch, 
Stadt K'oln, II (1863), 345-346. *' Johannes, Dechant zu Mainz, fordert 
im Auftrage des Cardinals Petrus den Kolnischen Domscholaster ^nf, alle 
Unruhestifter der Provinz zum Frieden zu ermahnen und fiir den Ubertre- 
tungsfall ihnen mit Excommunication und Interdict zu drohen." 

8* See Appendix, case 33. Case of Nevers. 

85(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., VII, 163 (Potth., 2338). (b) Rec., XIX, 546 
(Potth., 4333). 

®^See Appendix, case 2>^. Interdict on Auxerre. 

8^ (a) J-L., 14801. (b) Hocsemius, Hist. Pont. Leod., 1255, in Cha- 

peaville, II, 290. This interdict was laid because the citizens tried to tax 

the property of the clergy: *' . . . maltotum super venalibus posuissent 
>> 

88 (a) J-L., 17016. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., II, 242 (Potth., 898). (c) 
Inn. HI, Epp., X, 158 (Potth., 3234). 
^(a) J-L., 12192. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., II, 147 (Potth., 774). 
^ Lea, Inquisition, II, 278. ^* Potth., 956. 



32 



THE INTERDICT 



infringement upon the liberties of the church ,^^ by resistance 
of either ecclesiastics or laymen to the church/^ ^* by adher- 
ence to lay or clerical enemies of the church/^®® by treaties 

^^ (a) Chron. Rothomag. ad an. 1196, in Labbe, Nova Bibl., I, 369- 
370. ** Interdicta est civitas Rotomagensis et tota Normannia pro castro, 
quod Richardus Rex illustris firmavit in rupe Andeleii contra dignitatem 
Rothomagensis Ecclesiae ..." (b) England, 1208. (c) Hist. gen. 
de Languedoc, IX, 480. Several cities are interdicted because royal offi- 
cials interfered with episcopal jurisdiction. 

^Ha) J-L., 4869 (3628). (b) J-L., 9343 (6487). (c) Mat. Hist. 
Becket {R. Ser,), VI, 31-32. This interdict was laid because the bishop 
had disregarded his suspension, (d) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 60 (Potth., 66j. 
(e) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 160 (Potth., 119). (f) Ryccardus de S. Germano, 
Chron. ad an. 1210, in MGSS., XIX, 334. '^ . . , ecclesiam Capuanam 
sub interdicto ponit pro eo quod celebrare ausi sunt ipso [Otto] 
presente." (g) Gall. Christ.^ XII, Instrumenta, col. 173-174. This 
interdict was laid because the prior of La Charite refused to surrender to the 
bishop a woman suspected of heresy, (h) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 55 (Potth., 49). 
(i) J-L., 4536. Rowland, case No. 30. Cf. Hinschius, V, 21-22, n. 2. 

^* (a) Haddan and Stubbs, Conc.^ Ill, 586, note, and 597-602. How- 
land, case No. 12. Cf. Hinschius, V, 19, n. 13. (b) J-L., 6942. (c) 
Gesta Pontiff. Cameracen. , in MOSS., XIV, 237, lines 436-437. The 
citizens of Cambrai refused to give homage, (d) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 73 
(Potth., 1919). (e) Inn. Ill, Epp., XII, 144 (Potth., 3844). (f) Prov. 
Cone. Trev. , 1238, c. 5, in Mansi, Conc.^ XXIII, 480. If lords are re- 
quested to compel their subjects to obey the church, and fail to do so, the) 
shall be excommunicated. ** Et si sententia excom. non sufficit circa eos, 
ipsorum terra supponatur interdicto." (g) Collect. Topog. et Geneal.,'V\ 
(1840), 47ff. This interdict was laid because the injunction of a bishop 
against building a church was disregarded. It was a local particular inter- 
dict, (h) Hist. Episc. Autiss. , LXIV, in Labbe, Nova Bibl., I, 506. 
Auxerre, 1275. This interdict was laid because of non-observance of ex- 
communication, (i) Anon., S. Martialis Chron, ad an. 1276, in Duples- 
Agier, Chron. ^ 173. ** Eodem anno, Girbertus, Episcopus Lemovicensis, 
. . . vicecomitatum Lemovicensem subponit, propter obsidionem Userchie, 
eccl. interdicto." This is a case of armed resistance to the church, (j) 
Lea, Ltquisition, II, 280. Pistoia, 1375. The city was interdicted for 
protecting its citizens against arrest by the Inquisition. 

95(a) Jaffe, Bibl. Rer. Ger., II, 108. Howland, case No. 72. (b) 
Inn. in, Epp., I, 461 (Potth., 473). (c) Inn. Ill, Epp., II, 78 (Potth., 
718). (d) Ryccardus de S. German., Chron. ad an. I2ii,in MGSS., 
XIX, 334. (e) Teulet, Layettes, I, 372, No. 973 (Potth., 4317). Called 
excommunication, (f) Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 56 (Potth., 4736). For ad- 
herence to Emperor Otto, (g) Winkelmann, Ph. v. Schwaben, IT, 393- 
396. (h) Robert. Altiss., Chronolog. ad an. 1216, in Rec, XVIII, 284. 
*^ Omnium enim qui adhaeserant Ludovico subjecit et interdicto terras et 
excom. personas." (i) Annal. Waverl., in Annal. Monast. {R. Ser.)^ II, 
286. '* Walliam totam interdixit quia cum baronibus tenuit." (j) Gio- 
vanni Sercambi, I, 64-85, in Fonti, XX. Lucca, about 1335. Laid be- 
cause of adherence to Louis of Bavaria. 

9^ (a) J-L., 4573, 4574. Howland, case No. 31. Cf, Hinschius, V, 



THE LAYING OF AN INTERDICT 



33 



with infidels,*' by violation of treaties, vows, or oaths ,*^ by 
refusal to take an oath or make peace ,*^^^ by harboring male- 
factors ,^^^ by failure to elect a bishop ,^°^ by instalment into 

21-22, n. 2. King and princes of France were urged, under pain of inter- 
dict, to eject the usurping Bishop of Chartres. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., II, 
288 (Potth., 944). (c) Inn. Ill, Epp., VIII, 84 (Potth., 2530). (d) 
Annal. Staden. ad an. 121 1, in MGSS., XVI, 355. (e) MS. S. Marci 
Venet., Cod. Lat. 25, A. 141. i. 102 (LIX, XLI), O, fol. 17--20. 
Cited from Bibl. MS. ad S. Marci Venet., V, 325. This threat is by 
Alexander VI, because of the adherence of Florence to Savonarola. 
** . . , alioquin . . . totam civitatem Florentiae eccl. interdicto subiice- 
mus tandiu duraturo, quamdiu vestro isto monstruoso idolo favorem 
praestabitis. ' ' 

^' (a) J-L., 3012, 3046, 3089, 3090. Rowland, case No. 15. Naples, 
about 879. (b) J-L., 3304. Howland, case No. 15. Amalfi, about 
879. Both of these cities were interdicted for making a pact with the 
Saracens, (c) See Appendix, case i. Navarre, 1197. (d) Raynald., 
Annal. Eccl., 1229, XI. Holy places in Jerusalem, 1229. Laid because of 
Fredeiick II's treaty with the Sultan. Cf. Raumer, Gesch. HoAensl,, 111, 199. 

»8 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 92 (Potth., 81). (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 249 
(Potth., 263). (c) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 355 (Potth., 351). (d) Inn. Ill, 
Epp., I, 347 (Potth., 361). (e) J^ec, XIX, 352, 353 (Potth., 673), 
Art. 5: *' , . .quod, quotiescumque me a praedictis conventionibus 
resilere contigerit, toties . . . terram meam totam interdicto supponant.'* 
An interdict was later laid in accordance with this agreement, (f) Inn. 
0pp., Ill, 1 1 24, No. 120 (Potth., 2489). Henry, Count Palatine, was 
threatened v^dth interdict for failing to keep his oath to be faithful to Otto, 
(g) Jicc, XIX, 17. Raymond of Toulouse in his oath of submission 
agreed that, if he failed to keep it, he should be punished. ** , . . volo 
etiam et concedo ut persona mea excommunicetur et terra supponatur 
interdicto." (h) Gest. Hen. II (i?. Ser.), I, 180-190, and J-L., 12705, 
12248. Henry II of England is threatened with interdict if he fails to 
fulfil marriage agreements entered into with the King of France. (i) 
J^ec.^XlX, 375 (Potth., 674). (3) Gesta, c. 84. Interdict was threat- 
ened to enforce a crusader's vows, (k) Potth., 8162. An ambulatory 
interdict pursued Frederick II because he failed to keep his vow to go on 
a crusade. 

S9(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 297 (Potth., 286). (b) Steph. Tomac, 
Epp., 246, in Migne, Pal, Lai., 211, col. 513. 

100(a) Mat. Hist. Becket (i?. Ser.), VII, 235. " Regi . . . signifi- 
catnm est, quod, nisi citius cum ecclesia fecerit pacem ... ex tunc nulla 
ratione differri poterit quin in personam ejus et terram cismarinam et trans- 
marinam ecclesiastica severitas exerceatur." (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 355 
(Potth., 351). England and France are commanded to make peace or 9. 
truce on pain of interdict. 

1°^ J-L., 12135 (8160). The King of Aragon is threatened with inter- 
dict and excommunication, unless he banish the murderers of the Arch- 
bishop of Tarragona from his kingdom. 

i°2J_L., 5967. Threat of local particular interdict. The church of 
Mileto was to be interdicted, unless the canons elected a bishop before a 
certain date. 



34 



THE INTERDICT 



ecclesiastical benefices in spite of prohibition/^^ by attempt to 
commit any act deemed harmful to the church/^* and, finally, 
by offence against the right of asylum /°^ 

A third cause for interdicts is found in the necessities of 
ecclesiastical persons. Interdicts issued for such a cause were 
of two kinds : those resulting from the efforts of the clergy to 
obtain that protection to which they were entitled by the 
recognized law of the times; and those resulting from the 
desire of the clergy to advance their private interests. Im- 
prisonment, detention ,^°® banishment, and expulsion of clerks ,^^' 

^o^Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 113 (Potth., 1958). ^^ See above, n. 97. 

^05 Cone. Lond., 1286, c. 13, in Hard., VII, 625!. 

^^^ (a) J-L.j 4485. Rowland, case No. 29. Cf, Hinschius, V, 21, 
n. I. An interdict because of seizure and detention of the Bishop of 
Rosello. (b) J-L., 5368. Rowland, case No. 39. Cf, Hinschius, V, 
21-22, n. 2. In this case the interdict was laid because the people and 
clergy of St. James had seized their bishop, placed him in chains, and put 
another in his place, (c) J-L., 5469. Rowland, case No. 41. Cf, 
Hinschius, V, 22, n. i. Interdict because of imprisonment of Bishop Ivo 
of Chartres. (d) J-L., 6926 (5062). Rowland, case No. 58. Threat of 
interdict to secure the release of the Archbishop of Compostella. (e) 
J-L., 6987 (5098). Rowland, case No. 39. Portugal is threatened with 
interdict to secure the release of the Archbishop of Braga, with his follow- 
ers and property, (f) J-L., 16938, 16938a, 16938b. Denmark is threat- 
ened to secure the release of Waldemar, Bishop of Schleswig. (g) Hove- 
den, Chron., Pars post, ad an. 1199 (^. Ser,)^ IV, 94. (h) Inn. Ill, 
Epp., I, 24 (Potth., 29). (i) Auctor Anon., in Ludewig, IX, 81. Den- 
mark, 1259. ** . . . captus est Jacobus Archiepiscopus - . in domo 
sua . . . et incarceratus in castro Ragenskow; ob quod fuit interdictum 
. . . '' (j) J-L., 16970, 16971. Henry, Emperor of Constantinople, 
was threatened with interdict to secure the release of Richard, an English 
clerk, (k) Antiquus Cartul. Eccl. Baiocensis, No. 300, in Mem. Soc. 
Antiq. Norm,^ 8 (1834), 452-453. ** Post interdictum pro detentione 
hominis nostri canoni[ci] . . . " (1) Hist. gen. de Languedoc, IX, 
786. Cause for this interdict was the imprisonment of the grand vicar of 
an archbishop by the consuls of the city, (m) Mat. Hist. Becket {K. Ser), 
VI, 31-32. An interdict was threatened because of imprisonment of a 
chaplain, William, (n) J-L., 9737, 9738, 9739. Henry, Duke of 
Normandy, was threatened in order to secure the release of the abbot-elect, 
Richard. 

^°'(a) J-L., 8186 (5831). Rowland, case No. 65. Because the peo- 
ple had expelled WilHam. (b) J-L., 9619 (6667). (c) J-L., 9620 
(6668). (d) J-L., 9684 (6698); b, c, and d have to do with the ex- 
pulsion of an abbot, (e) Potth., 1260, 1261 (f) Inn. IH, Epp., VII, 
171 (Potth., 2344). (g) Clemens XI, Const. *'Ad Plurimas", 1713, in 
Bullar. Rom.^ XXI, 588g. Because the Bishop of Girgenti was expelled 
from his diocese. 



THE LAYING OF AN INTERDICT 35 

frequently produced interdicts, for the church endeavored to 
shield her servants from all indignities J^^ Personal opposition 
to churchmen ^°^ and infringement upon individual or corporate 
privileges were occasional causes for interdict. -^^^ Private gain 
was the motive for those interdicts by the aid of v/hich the 
payment of debts and tithes ^" was exacted , personal injuries 
were avenged, rivals were defeated ,^^^ and the payment of 
taxes was evaded /^^ It is by no means to the discredit of the 
church that interdicts for such causes were generally recog- 
nized as abuses. A discipline applicable in so wide a range ^^^ 

^08 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 403 (Potth., 413). (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 
56 (Potth., 4736). (c) Quellen Gesch. Stadt K'dhi^ II, 540. Cologne, 
1266. '* Papst Clemens IV ertheilt Vollmacht das Interdict der Stadt 
Koln, welches iiber die Biirger derselben wegen ihres Angriffs anf den 
Erzbischof verhangt worden, aufzuheben." (d) La Clede, Hist, de 
Fort., II, 418. Lisbon, about 1640. Because of excesses against the 
papal nuncio. 

^09 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 55 (Potth., 49). For the refusal of a chapter 
to receive a canon, (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 73 (Potth., 1919). John 
refuses to receive the Bishop of Seez. See Appendix, case 17. (c) Inn. 
Ill, Epp., XII, 144 (Potth., 3844). Because of refusal to receive a 
bishop. 

^^^ (a) See Appendix, case 81. Oxford, 1209. Because certain clerks 
were hanged in contravention of ecclesiastical privileges, (b) Quell. 
Gesch. Stadt Koln, IV, 133-134. ** Erzbischof Heinrich verkiindet, dass 
er . . . die Provincial-Statuten beziiglich des wegen Immunitats-Verletzung 
zu verhangenden Interdictes . . . mildere. " [c) M^xlot, Hist, de Reifns, 
III, 821-823, ^^o, 182. The archbishop tried to collect a tax from the 
" franc-bourgeois " of the chapter. 

^'^ (a) J-L., 1 701 6. Interdict allowed to secure the payment of tithes, 
(b) Potth., 898. Interdict allowed to enforce the payment of tithes, (c) 
Riedel, Cod.^ I, Urk., 219. Cited from Raumer, Gesch. Hohenst., VI, 
162, n. 3. Kegensburg interdicted because citizens did not pay their debt, 
(d) Planck, IV, ii, 294, n. 19. Clermont, 1250. Because the diocese 
refused to pay the bishop a sum usually paid ** pour son joyeux avenement ". 

^^2 Cone. Tolosan., 1056, Querimonia Berengarii Vicecomitis, in Hard., 
VI, I046f. The Archbishop of Narbonne used interdict against his rival, 
Berengar. 

^^^(a) See Appendix, case 15. York, about 1199. Archbishop Geof- 
frey resisted the levying of carucage by interdict, (b) Hocsemius, Hist. 
Pont. Leod. ad an. 1255, in Chapeaville, II, 290. Interdict because the 
citizens tried to tax property of canons, (c) Marlot, Hist, de Reims, III, 
821-823, No. 182. Chapter of Reims resisted a tax on their ** franc- 
bourgeois " by threat of interdict. 

^^* (a) Not infrequently the interdict resulted from the presence of some- 
thing {e. g.^ Bibl. de Dijon, MS. No. 73, fol. 172, v^., ** . . . villas au- 



36 THE INTERDICT 

was not always used judiciously ; for example, districts were 
sometimes interdicted for the fault of obscure persons or for 
unimportant offences.^^^ Neither did ecclesiastics properly 
distinguish their own personal and financial interests from 
those of the church. '^^ Robert of Rouen used the interdict 
because he was obliged to flee from the city ; "^ other priests 
closed churches to avenge insults ; "^ the Archbishop of Nar- 
bonne used the interdict against his rival, Berengar;"^ the 
clergy of Reims demanded a sum of money for raising the 
interdict ; the priests of Soissons were interdicted to enforce 

tem in quibus bona praedictorum fratrum, vel hominum suorum, per 
violentiam detenta fuerint, aut praedones eorum permanserint, seu etiam 
fratres fugitivii monachi vel conversi contra voluntatem eorum extiterint 
, . . interdicti sententie . . . supponatis."), (b) or of someone {e, g.\ 
(i) T-L., 1 21 35 (8i6o), the King of Aragon is threatened with interdict 
because of the presence of the murderers of the Archbishop of Tarragona; 

(2) Quell. Gesch. Stadt K'dhi^ II (1863), 273, interdict is allowed for those 
places in which obdurate plunderers of the church remain for three days; 

(3) ibid.^ VI (1879), 187, interdict is laid because of presence of excom- 
municates), (c) The church could lay an interdict on a locahty for the 
presence of some one guilty of any offense whatever. Such an interdict was 
not necessarily ambulatory. 

^^^(a) Kober, XXII, 29f. (b) Hist, gen. de Languedoc, VI (1879), 
763. Innocent IV forbade interdict in Languedoc for the fault of one or 
several offenders, because it weakened the cause of the church in the eyes 
of the heretics. Cf. Lea, Inquisition^ 11, 3. (c) Cone. Basil., 1435, 
Sessio 20 (Mansi, xxix, 103). **Quoniam ex indiscreta interdictorum 
promulgatione multa consueverunt scandala evenire, statuit haec S. Synodus 
quod nulla civitas, oppidum, castrum, villa, aut locus eccl. supponi possit 
interdicto, nisi ex causa, seu culpa ipsorum locorum, aut domini seu rec- 
toris vel officialium; propter culpam autem seu causam alterius cujus- 
cumque privatae personae hujusmodi loca interdici nequaquam possint 

116(a) Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat. 5993, A, VI, r°.-VII, v°. Blanche, 
Countess of Champagne, complained that several bishops laid interdicts 
*' . . . motum animi potius quam zelum rectitudinis exequentes ". Cf. 
Potth., 135a. (b) Hard., V, 1361, 1372, 1377. Hincmar of Laon 
ordered churches to be closed in case he should be punished by Hincmar 
of Reims, (c) Inn. Ill, Epp., XIII, 37 (Potth., 3723). The priests of 
Soissons complain that the interdict is used to enforce the payment of exor- 
bitant taxes, (d) C. 3. X. de poenis 5. 37. (e) Arch, de Reims, H, i? 
659. Innocent IV rebukes the clergy of Reims for demanding a sum of 
money for raising the interdict. 

11'^ Will. Gemetic, Hist. Norm., lib. VI, c. 3, in Rec, X, 191. 

"8 Cone. Toletan., 683, c. 7. 

"* See above, n. 112. 



THE LAYING OF AN INTERDICT 37 

the payment of taxes ; ^^° and even papal legates were not 
guiltless of such extortion. ^^^ The seriousness of these abuses 
is shown by the frequency of conciliar decrees against them , 
and the strength of the tendency to lay unjust interdicts ap- 
pears from the fact that papal privileges securing one against 
interdicts laid without clear and good cause were greatly 
desired. ^^^ 

Before a sentence of interdict could be duly laid, the regular 
processes of monition and citation must be observed. ^^^ One 
warning was necessary to make a sentence valid ,^^* and such 
admonition was as a rule advisable, not only because the inter- 
dict was the last resort, but also because the interdict was 
dangerous to the church and was to be avoided if a threat 
would have the desired effect. It was very common in giving 
warning to indicate how soon the sentence would take effect. 
This was done either by setting some date of the calendar,^^^ on 
which the offender's grace would expire, or by fixing a certain 

1^° See above, note 116 c. 

^^^ (a) C. 2. de sentent. excom. Extravag. comm. 5. 10. (b) This 
abuse still continued: Cone. Marcic, 1326, c. 55; Cone. Prap:ens., 1349, 
c. 12, in llarzheim, IV, 384. (c) The order of Boniface VIII was later 
several times repeated by other popes: in 1356 by Inn. VI {Quell. Gesch. 
Stadt K'oln., IV, 417-418), in 1435 by Eugene IV (Chevalier, Ord. rela- 
tives au Datipkine, p. 8, No. 61). 

122(a) J-L., 9934, 14349 (9251). (b) Potth., 1451, 1540, 1722, 1883, 
2158, 3247, 4236, 4485, 4946. (c) Arch, depart, de I'Yonne (Auxerre), 
H. 14: *' Personne ne pourra publier contre I'abbe et religieux de S. Jean 
sentence d'interdit ou d'excom. si ce n'est pour cause raisonnable. " 

123 Kober, XXII, 29ff. 

12* (a) i?^^., XI, 526. Rowland, case No. 26. (b) J-L., 5192 (3913), 
(c) T-L., 9737. (d) J-L., 10156. (e) J-L., 10479 "(7078). (0 J-L., 
12248 (8286), 11846 (7923)> 11847 (7924)* 12705. (g) J-L., 15461. 
(h) J-L., 16226. (i) J-L., 16970. (j) Potth., 552. (k) Potth., 1713. 
Writing of the interdict of France, 1200, Innocent said, *' . . . terram 
tantum post frequentes commonitiones subjecimus interdicto . . . '\ (1) 
Gesta, c. 131. '' . . . nisi rex diligenter commonitus acquiesceret, 
totum regnum Angliae [1208] subicerent interdicto ...'*. (m) Inn. 
Ill, Epp., XVI, 98 (Potth., 4798.) Interdict laid after warning. 

^^Ha) J-L., 5967. (b) J-L., 6781 (4959). Both are local particular, 
(c) J-L., 6793 (4967). Threat of personal interdict, (d) J-L., 6942. 
(e) J-L., 6987 (5098). (f) J-L., 71 14. Local particular, (g) J-L., 
9287. 



38 THE INTERDICT 

number of days of grace ; three /^^ fifteen ,^^^ twenty /^^ thirty ,^^^ 
forty days/^*^ two months/^^ three months/^^ and even six 
months ^^^ constituted the limit of grace on this or that occa- 
sion. The sources lead one to believe that more than one 
warning was unusual, but in the cases of Nevers (1145-- 
SS)/^* England (1170, 1173-1177, 1208)/^^'^^^ and France 
(1200) several warnings were given. The interval which in 
these cases elapsed between the different warnings argues that 
the admonitions were repeated, not because of a desire to 
observe canonical law, but because the church hesitated to 
take the step of laying the interdict. Citation, which was 

i26prov. Cone. Trev., 1238, c. 5, in Mansi, Cone, XXIII, 480. *' Si 
autem a die denuntiationis captivatum . . . infra triduum non restituerit, 
terra . . . supponatur interdicto." 

i2Tlnn. Ill, Epp., XII, 80 (Potth., 3777). 

128(a) J-L., 6948 (5078). Local particular, (b) J-L., 9884. Prob- 
ably personal, (c) Mat. Hist. Becket {R. Ser.), VII, 377. *' . . . in- 
fra viginti dies . . . ". In the same letter, however, it is stated later on 
'' , . . infra triginta dies . . . ". 

i2»(a)J-L., 5517(4129). (b) T-L., 5665(4242). Probably personal. 
(c) J-L., 10066 (6878). (d) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 347 (Potth., 361). 
«' . . . infra mensem . . . ". (e) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 73 (Potth., 1919). 
"" . , infra mensem . . . ". (f) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 191, 192 (Potth., 
2064, 2065). (g) Inn. Ill, Epp., VIII, 84 (Potth., 2530). (h) Marlot, 
Hist, de Reims, III, 819, No. 181. '^ . . . infra mensem - . . '\ 

ISO (a) J-L., 6926 (5062). (b) J-L., 1 1842 (7919). (c) J-L., 12821. 
'* . . . infra quadraginta dies . . . ". 

131(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 355 (Potth., 351). (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., VII, 
171 (Potth., 2344). '' . . . infra duos menses . . . ". (c) Inn. Ill, 
Epp., XIV, 126 (Potth., 4332). (d) Cone. Campanie., 1238, c. 17, in 
Mansi, Cone, XXIII, 491. " Per duos menses . . . expectentur; quibus 
elapsis castra ipsorum supponatur interdicto; et nisi infra ahos duos menses 
resipuerint, in tota terra sua interdicti sententia promulgetur." A total of 
four months was to elapse before the local general interdict should be 
issued. 

132 Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, %^ (Potth., 3418). 

133 Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 223 (Potth., 3618). 

134 J-L., 9545* 6624, 8986, 9544, 9619, 9784 (6748), 9786, 10066, 
10067, etc. 

1S5J-L., 11405 (7625), May 25, 1168; Mat. Hist. Becket [R. Ser,), 
VII, I04f., February 2, 1 169; J-L., 11710 (7825), January 19, 1 170; 
Mat. Hist. Becket {R. Ser.), Ill, 462, after June, 14, 1170; J-L., I1846, 
1 1847, September 13, 11 70; J-L., 11842 (7919), October 9, 1170. 

13SJ-L., 12248 (8286), 1 173; J-L., 12705, May 21, 1176. J-L., 
1 282 1, April 30, 1 1 77. 



777^ LA YING OF AN INTERDICT gg 

supposed to follow an unheeded warning, summoned the offend- 
ing party to appear and show cause why the interdict should 
not be laid. For intractable princes there usually was no 
citation, since there was no means of compelling appear- 
ance ,^^^ and their offences were generally so notorious as to 
leave no question regarding their truth. 

Warning and citation were followed by the promulgation of 
the interdict. For this there was no particular formula, the 
only rule being that the form used must be clear and explicit. 
It early became customary to put the sentence in writing, and, 
wherever possible, read it to the guilty party. The Council of 
Lyons determined that the reasons for the interdict must be 
clearly stated , and that the judge must give the condemned an 
authentic copy of the sentence, if this was demanded, within a 
month. Though there was no regular formula ^'^^ to be used in 
laying the interdict, a fairly common practice w^as developed. 
Thus, later formulae usually stated w^hat was the cause for the 
interdict, what services were forbidden, and sometimes how 
long the sentence w^as to last ;^^^" ^^ not infrequently they en- 
joined obedience to the sentence upon this or that indi- 
vidual,^^^ and specified the penalty for non-observance. ^^^ The 

^^■^ Kober, XXII, yii. However, Philip Augustus was summoned to 
Dijon. 

^^8 (a) Du Cange, Glossar,^ under *^ Interdictum ". Besides the list in 
Du Cange see the following: fb) Pflugk-Httg., Acta^ III, 233. Form of 
interdict used by Alexander III. (c) Ibid,^ 288. Form used by Lucius 
III. (d) Ibid.^ 332-333. Form used by Urban III. (e) Ibid.^ 344. 
Form used by Gregory VHI. (f) See also the following note. 

^^9 Below are cited a number of typical formulae. (a) J-L. , 3304. 
Amalfi, 879. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., V, 155 (Potth., 1813). (c) Rec. XIX, 
491 (Potth., 3115). (d) Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 143 (Potth., 3501). (e) 
Arch. Adj?i, de Reims^ II, 555. (f) Lebeuf, Mem. Diocese d^ Auxerre^ 
II, 69-71. (g) Martene, Thesaurus^ IV, 147. 

^^^A sentence was supposed to last until it accomplished its purpose, 
** . . . usque ad condignam satisfactionem ", J-L., 11891. 

^*^ (a) J-L., 1 1847. *^ . . - sententiam firmiter et inconcusse ob- 
servetis . . . ". (b) J-L., 11891. "... sent. - . . firmiter et invio- 
labiliter observetis et ab aliis faciatis inviolabiliter observari. " (c) Potth. . 
1248. (d) Potth., 1250. ** . . . teneatis firmiter et servetis . . . inter- 
dicti . . . sentent." (e) Potth., 1904. (f) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 73 
(Potth., 1919). (g) Etc., etc. 

^^ See formulae cited in notes 138 and 139. 



40 THE INTERDICT 

solemnity and ceremony with which an interdict was promul- 
gated naturally varied with circumstances, and it is possible 
that the highly imaginative and dramatic accounts by modern 
writers have some truth. It is exceedingly unfortunate that 
the chroniclers of the past, ignorant of the demands of scien- 
tific history, failed to leave to present-day writers so much as 
a single account which could be cited in foot-notes/*^ 

Promulgation was necessarily followed by publication of the 
sentence of interdict, whether the sentence was ferendae or 
latae}^ This constituted legal notice, without which the peo- 
ple could not be expected to know that they were inter- 
dicted.^*^ Such publication could be given by reading the 
sentence in a church or by posting it in a public place. There 
was sometimes difficulty in giving the necessary notice : ^^ in 
1606, all messengers were excluded from Venice ;^*^ in 11 70, 
Henry II gave orders to his port-reeves to allow no bearer of 
notice of interdict to enter England, and to treat such an one 
as a public enemy ; ^*^ in 1255, no one could be found to carry 
the tidings of interdict into Liege , and the task was finally put 
upon a woman and a boy, the latter of whom succeeded in 
delivering the message. ^*^ It seems justifiable to say that the 

1*' Hurler, Innocenz HI, and Capefigue, Hist de Philippe Auguste, 
give a very dramatic account of the laying of the interdict on France. 
The latter cites as his source *'De Legato miss, in Franc, Duchesne, V, 
754", which source is the same as Gesta, c. 51. The accounts of Hurter 
and Capefigue both go beyond the sources. 

1** Const. Martin V ^* Ad Vitanda '\ 

145 Several instances of pubHcation follow: (a) Gesta, c. 51. (b) Matt. 
Par., in Rec, XVII, 688. (c) Cone. Salzb., 1274, c. 18, in Hard., Conc.y 
VII, 726. (d) Cone. Arelat., 1275, c. 5, in Hard., Cone, VII, 728. 

^*^ See Appendix, case 71. Interdict on Bremen. 

1*"^ Tract, de Interdicto^ Proposit. II. The Seven Theologians claim 
that the interdict was not valid because it was not published, as is evident 
from the fact that it was not read in the churches, or posted anywhere; 
for which reason the people could not be expected to know of it. That 
the publication was prohibited and prevented bears no weight, for it has 
always been an accepted rule of the church that the publication of an inter- 
dict must precede, if the sentence is to be valid. 

1*8 (a) Gerv. Canter., Gesta Reg, {R, Ser,), II, 79. (b) Gerv. Canter., 
Opp. Hist. {R. Ser.), I, 234. 

^** Hocsemius, Hist. Pont. Leod. ad an. 1255, in Chapeaville, II, 287!. 



THE LAYING OF AN INTERDICT ^j 

canons, which required a sentence of interdict to be published 
to make it valid, were unimportant compared with the prac- 
tical necessity which demanded a notice in order to secure 
observance. Such a sentence depended for its effectiveness 
on public opinion, and the public has no opinion on matters 
of which it has no knowledge. Still one observes no reason- 
able distinction in the non-legal sources ^^^ between the pro- 
mulgation and the publication of an interdict, except perhaps 
in later centuries. One form of publication is that which is 
found in letters to various prelates or ecclesiastics notifying 
them of the sentence and ordering them to enforce its observ- 
ance. ^^^ Another form is publication by notaries and wit- 
nesses, a practice found in the second half of the sixteenth 
century. ^^'-^ Republications of the sentence to secure observance 
were very common. The usual custom was to republish the 
interdict every Sunday and feast day.^^^ In France, however, 
there was a second publication two months after the first 
notice. ^^* 

From the fact that warnings and citations were invariably 
given, it would appear that no offender could be unjustly sen- 

^^ (a) See non-legal sources for the interdicts under Innocent III. (b) 
Gall. Christ.^ X, ii, col. 60-61. 

^^Ha) J-L., 931Q (6472). (b) J-L., 11721-11727. Cf. Mat. Hist. 
Becket {R. Ser.), VII, 323ff., etc., etc. 

^^^ Cone. Mexican., 1585, lib. I, tit. x, c. 37, in Aguirre, Cone. Hisp., 
VI, 100. '' Notarii omnes . . . ad mandata aliqiia intimanda, seu ad 
publicandum censuras excom., interdicti, . . id exsequantur in calce 
mandati intimatione et publicatione cum testibus, nee non eorum subscrip- 
tione appositis. " 

153(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 192 (Potth., 2065). '' . . .interdicti 
. . . sententias, singulis diebus Dominicis et festivis, pulsatis campanis 
et candelis accensis, tarn in cathedralibus quam aliis parochialibus . . . 
publicari solemniter facientes, et vos etiam person aliter publicantes." (b) 
Inn. Ill, Epp., VIII, 84 (Potth., 2530). *' Id [sentence of interdict] 
autem, singulis diebus Dominicis et festivis, per ecclesias vestras, et vicinas 
dioeceses, ac terram ipsius [Philip of Suabia] publicari solemniter faciatis." 
(c) Inn. 0pp., Ill, 1 124, No. 120 (Potth., 2489). (d) Inn. Ill, Epp., 
XI, 26 (Potth., 3324). (e) Aegidius Aureavall, Gest. Pont. Leod, ad 
an. 1212, in MGSS., XXV, 118. Cf. Vit. Odiliae, lib. Ill, 6, in 
MGSS., XXV, 178. 

i5*Diceto (i?. Ser.), II, 68. 



42 THE INTERDICT 

tenced ; moreover he had the added protection afforded by 
the right of an appeal to RomeJ^^ An appeal made before 
the interdict was promulgated had the effect of preventing any 
sentence from being laid, until a decision had been rendered 
by Rome ;^^^ unless perchance, as was sometimes the case, the 
right of appeal had been denied by a special order. ^" An ap- 
peal made after the issuing of a sentence had no suspensive 
effect ; the interdict continued in force while the appeal was 
being heard. Appeals , however , were frequently disregarded,^^* 
which probably accounts for the fact that the right of appeal 
was sometimes granted as a privilege. ^^^ Not only the person 
threatened with interdict, but also the agent of the church, 
could appeal to the pope ; at the Council of Soissons the 
Archbishop of Rouen, who had previously been authorized to 
lay an interdict on England, hesitated because Becket's mur- 
der had altered circumstances, and in his doubt he appealed 

15'' (a) Ordonnances, I, 39. Cf. Raumer, Gesch. Hohenst.^ VI, 162, n. 
7. In France under Philip IV it became a law that one could enter in 
Parlement " appels comme d'abus " against interdict and excommunica- 
tion. See Viollet, Hist. Inst. Folitiq., II, 303-305. 

i^^(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 350 (Potth. , 364). Any sentence of interdict 
laid after appeal shall be void, (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., XV, 124 (Potth., 
4536). 

^^^ (a) Gesta Hen. II {R. Ser)., I, 8. *' . . . omni appellatione ces- 
sante . , . *' (b) J-L., 11 808. *' . . . omni excusatione et appella- 
tione remota ..." (c) J-L., T1847. (d) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 249 
(Potth., 263). (e) Inn. Ill, Epp., XII, 120 (Potth., 3843). (f) Gesta, 
c. 84. *' . . . appellatione postposita ..." 

1^8 (a) Mat. Hist. Becket {R. Ser.), VII, 444. '' . . . nee appella- 
tionem eorum attendens . . . toti terrae . . . indixit. " (b) Steph. Tor- 
nac. , Ep. 233, in Migne, Pat. Lat.^ 211, col. 501-503. '' . . . cum nos 
significaremus eis appellationem non teneri ..." (c) Inn. Ill, Epp., 
I, 58 (Potth., 65). ^' . . . sententiam quam in te post appellationem 
interpositam eumdem cardinalem tulisse dicebas ..." (d) Chron. 
de S. Denis, ad an. 1199, in Rec.^ XVII, 387. *' . . . li legaz, qui pas 
ne deporta I'apel, jeta la sentence ..." (e) Gesta, c. 116. '* . . . 
post appellationem nostram iteratam, , . - sententiam excom. in terram 
nostram promulgavit ..." (f) Hocsemius, Hist. Pont. Leod. ,inCha- 
peaville, II, 286f. (g) Kober, XXII, 32f. 

J59(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., VII, 171 (Potth., 2344). «' . . . sublato appel- 
lationis obstaculo ..." (b) Gesta, c. 84. (c) Inn. Ill, Epp. , VI, 42 
(Potth., 1883). (d) Inn. Ill, Epp., X, 93 (Potth., 3140). (e) Inn. Ill, 
Epp., X, 121 (Potth., 3174). (f) Inn. Ill, Epp., XIV, 45 (Potth., 
4236). Local particular. 



777^ LAYING OF AN INTERDICT 43 

to the pope,^^*^ probably with the design of shifting the burden 
of a decision to his Holiness. 

A tabulation of the results obtained from the sources of the 
period from 1198 to 12 16 shows that within these eighteen 
years at least fifty- seven ^^^ local general interdicts were in 
force. This figure is not unexpectedly large, still it is of sur- 
prising magnitude compared with the seventy-five interdicts 
given as the number from the fourth century to 1159.^^^ This 
half-hundred of interdicts does not nearly account for all evi- 
dences of this form of discipline during these eighteen years. 
The actual number of discovered interdicts is increased by 
about half as many threats — threats which unless heeded were 
followed by execution, and can therefore be included in the 
number of instances in which interdict was used.^^^ To these 
must be added six instances of probable interdict. These 
probable interdicts, increased by the twenty- seven threats and 
added to the number of known interdicts, bring the uses of the 
local general interdict during the pontificate of Innocent III 
to the appreciable total of ninety. But, even if we grant, as 
we have just done, that there was an interdict in each possible 
case, we have not completed the numbers of the discipline; 
for, besides these instances in which the interdict certainly or 
possibly existed, we find other traces of it — traces often indis- 
tinct, but occasionally of a character to put it beyond question 
that the available sources of our period record only a fraction 
of the actual total.^^* The Bishop of Ferrara asked the pope 

^eoGesta Hen. II {R. Ser.), I, 17. 

^^^ The cases represented by these figures are arranged in the appendix 
under the heads of actual cases of interdict, possible cases, and threats. 
Not only papal, but episcopal, and all other interdicts are included. 

^^2 Dr. Rowland's dissertation gives this number. In his list of inter- 
dicts are some which such writers as Kober and Hinschius do not consider 
interdicts, and others are omitted which they mention as interdicts. 

^^^ There are actually 27 threats known. 

^^ The author must at this point admit that he attempted to make a 
complete list of the interdicts between the years 1 1 98 and 121 6. That this 
attempt would be futile he surmised, and had it rather discouragingly 
demonstrated when, after he had searched for interdicts as widely as pos- 
sible for nearly two years, he was given a most useful reference by a friend 



44 THE INTERDICT 

for information about proper conduct * * when the citizens of 
Ferrara should be bound with sentences of excommunication 
and interdict " ; ^^^ Walter of Coventry states that Innocent real- 
ized that '-' in his day many lands had been interdicted*' j^^^ 
an accusation of Blanche, Countess of Champagne, made 
against the injustice of the prelates of her principality, inci- 
dentally testifies that sentences of interdict were not few in 
number ; ^^' bishops, from various parts of Christendom as far 
as can be told, complained that the Templars violated their 
interdicts, another testimony to the frequency of these sen- 
tences ; ^^^ the neighborhood of Coimbra labored under inter- 
dict so often, according to Innocent III himself, that it be- 
came important to distinguish between the general and the 
particular sentences ; ^^^ and tlie officials and citizens of Laon 
complained to the Roman pontiff that churchmen often af- 
flicted them and their lands with sentences of excommunica- 
tion and interdict."^ Finally, if interdicts were uncommxon, 
why should privileges of exemption from interdict be so numer- 
ous and so greatly desired? All this evidence leads to one 
conclusion, that interdicts were very, very frequent. 

The duration of the interdict varies ; ^^^ the very nature of 

to whose knowledge it had come in the course of a casual conversation 
with a fellow-traveler in the Alps. This is not the only time that valuable 
information was obtained by a lucky chance, and the inference is natural 
that many undiscovered chances still exist. 

165 Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 267 (Potth., 3666). 

i66Coventr. ad an. 121 3 {R. Ser.^ 58), II, 214. 

16^ See Appendix, case 78. Interdict on the lands of the Countess of 
Champagne. 

168 Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 121 (Potth., 3175). 

169 Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 554 (Potth., 592). 

1^0 Inn. Ill, Epp., XV, 124 (Potth., 4536; cf. 4256). 

1^^ (a) About six years: England, 1208-14. (b) Five years: Oxford, see 
Appendix, case 81. Interdict on Oxford, (c) Five years: Leon, see 
Appendix, case 52. Interdict on Leon, (d) Four years: Hist. gen. de 
Languedoc^ IX, 190-192. (e) Three years: Bellarmin, Risposia^ Proposit. 
VII. ** In Polonia duro al tempo di Papa Greg. VII I'interdetto tre anni 
..." (f) Two years: Auctor Anon, ad an. 1 259-1 261, in Ludewig, 
IX, 81. (g) About two years: Florence, Lea, Inquisition^ II, 278, 280. 
(h) About two years: Treviso, Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 39 (Potth., 1 160). 



THE LAYING OF AN INTERDICT 45 

the discipline and the importance of the offence or the of- 
fender makes differences in duration inevitable. To strike an 
average length, even granting that one had at his disposal 
a sufficient number of cases, is impossible unless one could 
measure and equalize every attendant circumstance. The 
canon law of the matter is very simple and very practical, but 
very indeterminate : an interdict remains in force until its 
object is accomplished. One interdict lasted less than a day ,"^ 
another so long that the people lost their reverence for church 
services."^ The cathedral of Rouen submitted to authority in 
twelve days,^^^ Portugal and Auxerre were r^ebellious for twelve 
years. "^ Limoges was under interdict for eight months,^'^ 
Denmark for nine years. ^" Mantua lay under interdict for 
thirty-three years ,^^^ and a chapel in Maidenhead for fifty 

(i) About two years: Oxford, Mim. Acad, Oxon. (7t, Ser.), 190. fj) 
About seventeen months: Cologne, Winkelmann, Ph, v. Schwaben^ II, 
393-396. (k) About eighteen months: Cremona, Inn. Ill, Epp., VII, 
163 (Potth., 2338). (1) About one year: Rouen, Chron. Rothomag. ad 
an. 1233, in Labbe, Nova Bibl., I, 376. (m) About one year: Toulouse, 
Hist. gen. de Languedoc, IX, 786. (n) About eight months: France, 
(o) About six months: Metz, Alber. Trium Font., 450, cited from 
Raumer, Gesch. Hohenst.^ VI, 168, n. 7. (p) About eight months: 
Limoges, Varia Chron. Fragm. ad an. 1202, in Duples-Agier, Chroniq.^ 
192-193. (q) About twelve days: Cathedral of Rouen, Chron. Rothomag. 
ad an. 121 1, in Labbe, Nova Bibl., 1, 372. ** . . . Cathedralem 
Ecclesiam interdixit in crastino Octavarum Nativitatis B. Virginis et fuit 
interdicta usque in diem S. Michaelis." (r) Etc., etc. 

^"2 Chron. Mayors and Sheriffs of London, 1266, p. 97. 

i^Ha) Gloss on Const. ''Alma Mater" de Sent. Excom., VL An 
interdict of thirty or forty years. Cited from Pithou, Des Inter dicis Eccl.^ 
p. 18. (b) Tractat. de Interdicio, Proposit. IV. ** . . . timendum 
[est] ne idem evenerit malum, quod alias in Urbino contigit: quae urbs 
tamdiu ab interdictum sacris exercitiis fuit destituta ut post restitutionem 
celebrationis missae et aliorum officiorum sacrorum, difficillimum fuerit 
populum ad eam audiendam, eique debitam praestanstandam [j^V] reve- 
rentia assuefacere." 

^^* See above, n. 171, q. 

^"^^ (a) Mariana, De Rebus Hisp-, lib. 13, c. 12. Portugal, by Alex- 
ander IV, ** Interdictum tenuisse duodecim annos scribunt." (b) See 
Appendix, case %Z. Interdict on Auxerre. 

^^^ See above, n. 171, p. 

^" Auctor Anon, ad an. 1 266-1 275, in Ludewig, IX, 81. 

^^^ Maffei, Aimal. di Mantova, 592, cited from Raumer, Gesch. Hohenst,^ 
VI, 299. 



46 THE INTERDICT 

years. ^'^ Such contrasts and such lengths are, however, un- 
usual. From the cases examined a common length seems to 
be from one to two years.^^^ 

The territorial extent of the interdict was limited only by 
the jurisdiction of the authority promulgating the sentence. 
Kingdoms /^^ duchies and counties /^^ dioceses or provinces ,^^^ 
cities ,^^* including suburbs and all outlying buildings ,^^ lands 

1^9 (a) Colled, Topog. et Geneal., VI (1840), 47ff. Roger de Mortival, 
in 1324, requested permission from the Archbishop of Canterbury to re- 
move an interdict laid on a chapel in Maidenhead about fifty years before. 
The archbishop had no knowledge of the interdict, but granted the re- 
quested permission, (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 20 (Potth., 4678). It 
was reported to Innocent III that lands formerly fertile had ceased to 
yield abundantly; and its inhabitants thought that this resulted ** . . . 
quia terra eadem ohm, sicut fama est, . . . supposita fuit sententiae inter- 
dicti, quae non creditur fuisse postmodum relaxata." The pope was re- 
quested to relax the interdict and he did so. 

^^^ See above, n. 171. 

^^^ (a) Armenia, see Appendix, case 68. (b) Cyprus, Potth., 956. 
(c) Poland, Bellarmin, Risposta^ Proposit. VII (see p. 44, n. 171, e.) (d) 
Hungary, P^elten, Greg, IX, 192. (e) Bohemia, Raynald., AnnaL, I, 
1222, L, and 121 7, XLIII. (f) Empire, threat, J-L., 16970, 16971. 
(g) France, 1200. See Appendix, case 57. (h) Aragon, threat, J-L., 
12135 (8160). (i) Leon, see Appendix, case 52. (j) Castile, threat, 
Rec, XI, 526. (k) Portugal, threat, J-L., 6987 (5098). See also Ap- 
pendix, case 52. (1) England, 1170, J-L., 11710(7825) and (1208). 
(m) Scotland, J-L., 13710 (8813), 14613 (9465). (n) Denmark, threat, 
J-L., 16938; and Auctor Anon., in Ludewig, IX, 81. 

^^2 (a) Thuringia, threat, lands of the Landgrave. See Appendix, case 
21. (b) Palatinate, threat, lands of the Count. See Appendix, case 25. 

(c) Brabant, see Appendix, case 75. (d) Bavaria, Potth., 10730. See 
also Appendix, case 22. (e) Austria, threat, see Appendix, case 27. 
(f) Normandy. Gesta Hen. II {R, Ser,), I, 16. (g) Poitou, ibid, (h) 
Anjou, ibid, (i) Brittany, ibid, (3) Toulouse, see Appendix, case 85. 
(k) Nevers, threat, see Appendix, case 12. (1) Champagne, lands of the 
Countess, see Appendix, case 78. (m) Namur, threat, lands of the 
Count, see Appendix, case 23. (n) Blois, see Appendix, case 77. 

183(a) Olmutz, J-L., 8221 (5816). (b) Prague, Potth., 5582, 5714, 
5729, 5739> etc. (c) Gap, J-L., 4536. (d) Laon, J-L., 16303. (e) 
Rouen: (i) J-L., 12552; (2) Chron. Rothomag. ad an. 1233, '^^ Labbe, 
Nova Bibl,, I, 376. (f) Canterbury, J-L., 12705. (g) York, Potth., 682. 

18* In the East: (a) Acre, Rohricht, Gesch. Kgr. Jerusalem^ II, 832- 
834, note, (b) Joppa, threat, J-L., 1 1383 (7612). 

In the Teutonic part of the Empire: (c) Metz, see Appendix, case 41. 

(d) Cologne, see Appendix, case 76. (e) Liege, Mansi, Conc.^ XXII, 
9, c. 2. 

In Italy: (f) Naples, J-L., 3012, 3046, 3089, 3090. (g) Amalfi, J-L., 
3344. (h) Benevento: (i) Annal. Benev. ad an. iioo, in MGSS,, III, 



THE LAYING OF AN INTERDICT 



47 



belonging to a chapter /^^ private lands as distinguished from 
sovereignties/^'^ parishes /^^ churches/^^ chateaux/^^ and even 
altars ^^^ were interdicted. The districts affected were not 
necessarily contiguous.^^^ Selling, transferring, or in any way 

183; cf. Hinschius, V, 22, n. i; (2) J-L., 4144; Rowland, case No. 
24. (i) Ferrara, J-L., 7144. (j) Verona, J-L., 8940. Cf, J-L., 9169 
(6373). (k) Rome, Jaffe, Bibl. Rer, Ger., II, 108. (1) Lucca, J-L., 
13628. (m) Lodi, J-L., 14801. (n) Rimini, threat, J-L., 15461. (o) 
Treviso, Potth., 1 160. (p) Orvieto, threat, Potth., 3777. (q) Bergamo, 
Potth., 3962. (r) Capua, see Appendix, case 72. (s) Milan, Potth., 
5329. (t) Piacenza, Potth., 5329. (u) Mantua, Maffei, Annal. di 
Mantova, 592. (v) Florence, Lea, Inquisition^ II, 278-281. (w) 
Girgenti, Clemens XI, Const. ** Ad Augendam", in Bullar. Rom,^ VIII, 
185. (x) Catania, ibid, (y) Lipari, ibid. 

In France: (z) Beauvais: (i) J-L., 4854 (3616), called anathema; (2) 
J-L., 10827. (aa) Montpellier, J-L., 8186. (bb) Beziers, Newburgh, 
Hist. Rer. {r. Ser.), I, 128-129. (cc) Toulouse, J-L., 11489 (7678). 
(dd) Arras, J-L., 13750. (ee) Aries, J-L., 15704, called excommunica- 
tion, (ff ) Reims, Marlot, Hist, de Reims ^ III, 798, et passim, (gg) 
Auxerre, Hist. Episc. Autiss., LXIV, in Labbe, Nova Bibl.^ I, 506. 

In Spain: (hh) Toledo, see below, n. 209. (ii) Tortosa, Potth., 664a, 
25466, 664b, 3234. 

In Northern Africa: (33) Carthage, threat, J-L., 4793 (3557), called ex- 
communication. 

In England: (kk) Oxford, see Appendix, case 81. (11) London, Potth., 

5013-. 

This is by no means a complete list of interdicted cities. 

^^ (a) See above, n. 17. (b) Chron, Mayors and Sheriffs of London^ 
1268, p. 113. 

^^^ Marlot, Hist, de Reims, III, 623, No. 169. The lands of the chapter 
of Reims were interdicted by the Archdeacon Ottobonus. 

187 Private lands: (a) Ours, J-L., 6441. (b) ^* Rubeus '% J-L., 
6942. (c) Certain knights, J-L., 9554 (6630). (d) William, J-L., 
1 7128. (e) Murderers of the Bishop of Wiirzburg, Potth., 1813. (f) 
See also J-L., 8540 (6040), 5469, 5517 (4129), 6926 (5062), 7125 (5162), 
7202 (5208), 10479 (7078). 

Sovereignty: (g) J-L., 1 282 1. Alexander III gave his legate instruc- 
tions that if Henry failed to meet certain demands *' . . . in regnum et 
in terram ejus . . . interdicti sententiam proferas". 

^^^ Quell. Gesch, Stadt. K'dln,^ IV, 103-104. An interdict for a parish 
is ordered by John XXII. 

^^^The following are local particular interdicts: (a) J-L , 6483, 8647 
(6093), 5967, 10158 (6926). Churches, (b) J-L., 8896 (6231), cathe- 
dral of Bourges. (c) J-L., 9319 (6472), 17434, monasteries. 

i^^(a) **Castrum Branense ", J-L., 15920. (b) «^ Castrum Albini- 
acense", J-L., 14853. 

^^^ An altar in the church of St. George, Genoa, J-L., 15758a. 

^^'^ (a) J-L., 12705. The county of Poitou and the province of Canter- 
bury were threatened simultaneously for a single offence of the same per- 
son, (b) Potth., 351. England and France were threatened with the 
same interdict. 



48 THE INTERDICT 

alienating a part of the district did not remove the sentence, 
nor was a church built during the interdict exempt; added 
territory, however, suffered no deprivation of services. ^^^ All 
persons of a locality, even the one who laid the sentence, 
were affected, but parishioners from an interdicted district 
could worship in a neighboring parish until the Council of 
Cologne (1279) required priests before beginning services to 
ask whether any present were from an interdicted place, and if 
so to expel them.^^^ This rule remained in force until Boni- 
face VIII restored the early practice except for those who 
were responsible for the interdict. ^^^ 

The geographical dispersion of the interdict depended on 
the geographical extent of church power and the political 
status of the church within those limits. Nearly all of the 
important countries of Western Europe were threatened ,^®^"^^ 
if not actually interdicted, in the last half of the twelfth cen- 
tury or the first half of the thirteenth. Germany ^^^ and the 
principalities which composed it were interdicted much less 
than other countries. The scarcity of episcopal interdicts in 
Germany has been accounted for by Dr. Rowland, who sur- 
mises that the German prelates used their extraordinary tem- 
poral power instead of their spiritual weapons to enforce obe- 
dience.^^® The paucity of papal threats and interdicts to 1198, 
at least, must be explained on the ground that the Ghibelline 
sympathies of the clergy doomed any papal action to failure. 
In that year Innocent III secured the sympathy of a portion 
of the German clergy, and from that time interdicts were 
more frequent. This circumstance reveals an interesting feat- 
ure of the interdict \ since it depended so largely for its 
effectiveness on the state of the public mind, it was more 
likely to be effective in a friendly than in a hostile community. 

193 Kober, XXI, 292ff. 

19* (a) Gerbertj Epp., 93, in Rec.^ X, 420. **Qnod si is locus interdicto 
vestro . . . iure tenetur astrictus liceret iimocentibus paroechianis ad alia 
transmigrare loca suisque legaliter uti sacris." (b) Cone. Colon., 1279, 
c. 18, in Hard., VII, 835. 

19S Cf, J-L., 16970, 16971. 196 Howland, Interdict, chap. III. 



THE LAYING OF AN INTERDICT 49 

No one understood this more perfectly than Innocent III, but 
he was too astute not to realize that undue use of the interdict 
in Guelf communities might lead to the estrangement and 
desertion of the papal cause, and therefore he used his power 
with discretion. 

East of the Empire , interdicts were laid on Armenia,^^"^ Cy- 
prus ,^^« Joppa,^^ Acre,=^^ Poland,'^^ and Hungary. =^^2 In the 
West they were used most frequently in Italy, France, and 
Spain. ^°^ Even Northern Africa did not remain untouched, 
for Gregory VII threatened the clergy and the people of the 
diocese of Carthage with the interdict.^°* England ,^^^ Scot- 
land ,^*^ and Wales ,^°^ though insular, were not immune, and 
Denmark learned to know the interdict by repeated experi- 
ence. ^^^ Whether this discipline, which flourished so long and 
so widely in Europe, ever crossed the Atlantic to America is a 
question which has as yet had no positive answer. The late 
date to which the interdict endured in Spain ^^^ makes it seem 
very reasonable and possible that it was carried to Spanish 
America, though no traces have been found of it except the 
mention given it in the decree of the Council of Mexico ,^^^ 
which indeed lends color to the view that America, too, saw the 
local interdict. 

^^■^ See Appendix, interdict on Armenia, case ^%. 

i^spotth., 956. ^^M-L., 1 1383 (7612). 

200Rohricht, Gesch Kgr, Jerusalein, II, 832-834, n. 

2^^ Bellarmin, Risposia^ Proposit. VU. 

202(a) Felten, Greg. IX, p. 192. (b) Cf. above, nn. 181-184, 187. 

203 Cf. above, n. 184. 

20^ J-L., 4793 (3557), 4794 C3558), called excommunication. 

20^ (a) Potth., 2344. (b) See above, nn. 181, 183, 184. 

206 See above, nn. 181, 182. 

207 Annal. Waverl. ad an. 1216, in Annal. Monast. {R. Ser.), II, 286. 

208 (a) J-L., 16938, threat, (b) Potth., 9521, threat, (c) Revised 
Formulary of Benedict XII, F. 44. (d) Auctor Anon., in Ludewig, IX, 
81 83. One interdict lasted from 1259 to 1261; a second, from 1266 to 
1275. (e) With the use of interdict in the Greek Catholic Church the 
present research is not concerned. 

209 Lea, Inquisition, I, 514, shows that there was an interdict on Toledo 
in 1720. 

"OHard., X, 1726. 



CHAPTER HI. 

The Interdict in Force. 

Issuing a sentence did not always insure its observance. If 
it was not observed, the church appealed first of all to the 
religious sensibilities of the people. In one case the clergy 
were given the power to remove the cross from the church and 
pronounce imprecations ; ^ in another they were commanded 
to depart from the accursed place. ^ Gregory of Tours reports 
that brambles were placed before the church,^ and the " Songe 
du Vergier " complains that the altars were uncovered.^ Narni 
was threatened with the loss of her bishop,^ and Parma was 
transferred to another jurisdiction.^ Men were released from 
oaths taken with a design of violating the interdict.*^ At 
Liege, the crucifix and the images of the holy saints and 
martyrs were wreathed with thorns and cast upon the ground.^ 

^ Quell. Gesch. Stadt K'oln^ II, 273. Anyplace in which an ecclesiastic 
is detained captive for three days is to be interdicted: '^ Si vero per octo 
dies Hberati non fuerint, cum bona voluntate nostra omnes ecclesiae cruces 
deponant et si per quindenam adhuc perduraverit, extunc fient impreca- 
tiones de consilio Priorum qui commode haberi poterunt, ad ulteriora pro- 
cessuri cum aliis solempnitatibus cum consilio eorundem Priorum et Capi- 
tuli Coloniensis. " 

2 Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 143 (Potth., 3501). 

^ Greg. Turon, In Glor. Confess., c. 70. 

^ Le Songe du Vergier^ lib. I, c. 179, 

^ See above, n. 2. 

«Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 393 (Potth., 399). 

"^ Mat. Hist. Becket {R. Ser.), VII, 22of. 

8 (a) Vitae Odiliae, ad an. 1212, in MGSS., XXV, 178. "Decretum- 
que est in ipso concilio, ut imago crucis et sanctorum reliquie spinis circum- 
date in omni prosternantur ecclesia tocius diocesis, organa suspendantur, 
et singulis dominicis festivisque diebus fiat proclamatio pro predicto scelere; 
insuper in diicem et omnes suos complices prefata sententia sollempniter 
renovetur. Est igitur primitus in maiori ecclesia imago Crucifixi deposita, 
et sanctorum Theodardi et Maldaberte virginis reliquie, qtie pariter conti- 
nentur, ad eius dextram sunt posite; ad sinistram vero Petri et Andoleti et 

50 



THE INTERDICT IN FORCE 5 1 

Canonical burial was refused, and in several cases the punish- 
ment for disregarding this prohibition was the disinterment of 
the bodies.^ In the settlement of the interdict of La Charity, 
for instance, it was stipulated that twenty bodies should be 
exhumed in each cemetery, and should be exposed while one 
mass for the dead, begun immediately after the disinterment, 
was celebrated; and, should more than twenty bodies be un- 
lawfully buried, they too were to be exhumed unless the re- 
spective heirs or successors made satisfaction.^^ These terms 
were fulfilled, and the bodies lay exposed while a general ser- 
mon was preached to the people in the church of St. Peter of 
La Charite and a mass for the dead was recited. Then the 
bodies were given canonical burial.^^ 

But the power of the church was by no means exhausted in 
such expedients to arouse public sentiment. Various admin- 
istrative measures, punishment of the clergy, and reward for 
obedience were also means of securing observance of inter- 
dicts. Prelates were commanded to observe the sentence, ^^ 
suburbs and outlying buildings were included in interdicted 
cities ,^^ the people were urged to listen to preaching" and 

sancti Floriberti episcopi et confessoris, que etiam pariter collocantur, 
relique sunt statute." (b) Hocsemius, Hist. Pont. Leod. ad an. 1255, in 
Chapeaville, II, 2%^{, ** Hie attende quod istis temporibus Canonici con- 
tra Episcopum et quoscunque injuratores suos organa sua suspendere con- 
sueverunt; spinis et urticis Sanctorum imagines involvendo." C. 2. de 
Offic. ordinar., VI, i. 16. " Caeterum detestabilem abusum horrendae 
indevotionis illorum qui crucis, Beatae Mariae Virginis, alicrumque Sancto- 
rum imagines seu statuas irreverenti ausu tractantes, eas in aggravationem 
cessationis hujusmodi prosternunt in terram et urticis spinisque supponunt 
. . . prohibemus. " 

^ Prov. Cone. Scoticanum, c. 24, in Wilkins, Cone, I, 610. ** . . . et 
quod a loco sacro extrahantur corpora sic sepulta. " 

i^(a) GalL Christ,, XII, Instrumenta, col. 173-174. (b) Hist. Episc. 
Autiss., c. 64, in Labbe, Nova Bibl,, I, 506. 

*^ Prynne's Records, II, App. 4-6. Prynne's Records are responsible 
for the unsupported statement that before the interdicted churches of 
Faversham were reconciled all altars were broken to pieces,* palls of altars 
and corporals were burned, and all chalices were melted that had been 
used during the interdict. 

^^ See above, chap. II, n. 151. ^^ See above, chap. II, n. 17. 

"See above, chap. II, nn. 153, 154. 



52 THE INTERDICT 

were forbidden to leave the district and worship in other 
places/^ the sentence was republished on Sundays and feast- 
days, and those laymen who showed particular impudence in 
refusing to observe the interdict were threatened with excom- 
munication.^^ Entire failure to observe the sentence resulted 
in an aggravation^ — sometimes in the form of threats of ex- 
communication," sometimes in the extension of the territorial 
bounds of the interdict. ^^ 

Punishment for non-observance fell most heavily on the 
clergy, for without their connivance the interdict could be but 
slightly violated. Laymen were punished for refusal to heed 
the sentence only when they were lords or authorities and 
compelled the clergy to perform rites, in which case they fell 
under a form of excommunication reserved to the pope. A 
council of 1238, for instance, declared that those barons who 
refused for a year to observe the interdict should be consid- 
ered heretics, and that their property should be confiscated.^^ 
For the regular clergy there were only two forms of punish- 
ment for non-observance : excommunication ipso facto f^ and 
removal to a monastery with a more rigid discipline ,^^ unless a 
regular w^as also a priest, in which case he was subject to sus- 
pension.^^ For the secular clergy the three penalties were 
suspension, deprivation of benefices, and deposition. ^^ Sus- 

^^ See above, chap. I, n. 40. 

i^Kober, XXII, 37!. 

^■^ (a) John of England, excommunicated in 121 1. (b) J-L., 1 1728. 

18 Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 136 (Potth., 4828). After John's submission 
Innocent wrote: ** . . . mandamus quatenus nobis inconsultis in cis- 
marinam terram ipsius non proferas aliquo modo sententiam inlerdicti." 
Evidently Innocent had designed to interdict John's continental posses- 
sions, if he did not submit. 

^^Conc. Campinac, 1238, c. 17, in Mansi, XXIII, 491. 

*^ (a) C. I de sent, excom. in Clement. 5. 10. (b) Annal. S. Edmundi, 
ad an. 1208 (Liebermann, p. 147). The Cistercians were excommunicated 
for violating the interdict. 

21 (a) C. 7. X. de cleric, excom. minist. 5. 27. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., X, 
62 (Potth., 3101). 

22 Matt. Par., Hist. Angl. ad an. 1208, in Rec, XVII, 689. 
23Kober, XXII, 37f. 



THE INTERDICT IN FORCE 



S3 



pension was most frequently used ,^* and more serious offences 
brought deprivation of benefices ;^^ a particularly grave disobe- 
dience resulted in deposition. ^^ The following penalties were 
imposed at various times upon disobedient clerks : certain 
seculars lost the power of acquiring benefices," others lost 
their right of burial/^ some underwent severe penance,'^ and 
still others lost their distributions or ornaments. ^^ In one 
case where suspension proved ineffectual, the clerk was obliged 
to make a pilgrimage to Rome/^ in another he was excommu- 
nicated.^'^ In some instances the pope annulled the promo- 
tions of those who had disobeyed.'^ Excommunicates who 
persisted in celebrating forbidden services were detained in 
monasteries/* and those clerks who had admitted forbidden 
persons to church services were compelled to have services 
with closed doors and without the sound of bells under pain of 

2* (a) Gesta, c. 51 in fin. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 20, 43; VI, 13. 
(c) C. Ult. X. de excess, praelat. 5. 31. 

There follow a few instances of suspension: (d) J-L., 14316(9314). 
(e) Gesta, c. 57. (f) Inn. Ill, Epp., XV, 12 (Potth., 4406). (g) 
Matt. Par., Hist. Angl. ad an. 1208, in Rec.^ XVII, 689. 

25 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., X, 62 (Potth., 3101). (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 
97 (Potth., 1934). (c) J-L., 1 1840. (d) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 13 
(Potth., 1846). 

^^ (a) Greg. IX, Encyclica ad univ. praelat., 1239, in Huiilard-Breholles, 
Hist,,W, 293. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 97 (Potth., 1934). (c) J-L., 
14111 (9170. 

2T (a) C. I. X. de postulat. I. 5. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 20. 

28 Cone. Ravennat., 131 1, c. 28, in Hard., VII, I376f. ** . . . qui- 
cumque de cetero excom. - . . vel interdict! sententiam animo sustinuerit 
per annum indurato ... in poenam contumaciae eccl. careat sepultura. " 

29 J-L., 14111 (9171). ** . . . et omnibus poenitentiam injungat . . .*' 

^^ Lebeuf, Mhn. Diocese d'Auxerre, II, 69-71. 

31(a) Gesta, c. 57. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 13 (Potth., 1846). (c) 
Roi. Chart. ^ I, 209. 

»2J.L., 1 1728. 

3»(a) Gesta, c. 54, 56, 57. (b) Inn. 0pp., IV, col. 58 (Potth., 969). 
(c) C. 5. X. de postulat. i. 5. (d) Potth., 1043. 

2* (a) J-L., 11840. (b) Prov. Cone. Trevir., 1238, c. 7, in Mansi, 
XXIII, 480. *' Statuimus, quod si clericus celebraverit in loco interdicto, 
vel ipse interdictus, vel excommunicatus divina celebrare praesumpserit, et 
ammonitus a praelato suo non destiterit, per episcopum loci capiatur arctae 
custodiae et poenitentiae deputandus. ' ' 



54 THE INTERDICT 

severer penalty, and for every day the clerks offended they 
and their churches suffered a week.'*^^ 

Just as refusal to observe interdict brought punishment, so 
rewards were offered to those who heeded it. Peter of Arras 
received special thanks from the pope for his ardent support 
of the cause of the church/^ and other French bishops were 
honored with laudatory letters.^"^ The '^ religious" of Venice 
had promises of *' graces, honours, and dignities/' ^^ and indul- 
gences were published for all who would observe the inter- 
dict. "^^ When it seemed that the interdict of Sicily (17 17) 
would fail, the pope felt constrained to issue a plenary indul- 
gence to all who would obey the sentence. ^^ 

From Sarpi's well-informed, if bitter, account of the struggle 
of Paul V with Venice (1606) can be gathered an idea of the 
numerous devices to secure the effectiveness of the interdict. 
Seeing that his sentence would not be observed, the pope 
withdrew his nuncio from Venice , charging him to leave none 
of his company behind.*^ The Jesuits in departing from the 
city proceeded with great solemnity, hoping to stir up a tumult, 
in which they were disappointed. The Capuchins had in- 
tended to do the same thing; but, being prevented, '* they 
celebrated that morning only one Masse and consumed all of 

2^ Prov. Cone. Trevir., 1238, c. 4, in Mansi, XXIII, 479-480. 

36 Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 25. 

3'^Sigeb., Contin. Aquic, in MGSS., VI, 436. '«Hos [that is, those 
obeying the interdict] papa Innocentius miris per epistolas illis missas effert 
laudibus, contemptores autem verbis terret minacibus. " 

^'^ ^2x\i\^ Historia particolare. The quotation is from the quaint con- 
temporary English version, Quarrels of Paul F, 103-104. 

'^"^ Ibid., 135-137. 

'^o Clemens XI, Const. ** Ad augendam", 1717, in Bullar. Rom., VIII, 
185. ** . . . qui . . . interdictum cui civitates et dioceses praefatae in 
praesens jussu nostro suppositae reperiuntur, ea, qua par est obedientia 
nunc observant, et etiam m posterum, quousque illud perduraverit similiter 
observareperrexerint, in cujuslibet eorum mortis articulo, si vere poenitentes 
et confessi, ac sacra communione refecti, vel quatenus id facere nequiverint, 
saltem contriti Nomen Jesu ore, si potuerint, sin minus corde devote invo- 
caverint, plenariam omnium peccatorum suorum Indulgentiam et remis- 
sionem misericorditer in Domino concedimus." 

*^ Sarpi, Quarrels of Paul V, 83-84. 



THE INTERDICl IN FORCE 55 

the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, which was preserved in 
their Church, and concluded the Masse without giving Bene- 
diction unto the people. They left also to their Devotes divers 
instructions for to observe the Interdict, as did likewise the The- 
atines."*^ The papal court tried to induce all ** religious " 
either to abstain from services or to withdraw from Venice. 
The cardinals and superiors of the orders ^' did what they could 
with them, with menaces of censures, paines, and other evils 
corporal] and spirituall, as also with promises of graces, hon- 
ours, and dignities, not only to the Chief e, but further to each 
particular, if they would observe the interdict or retire them- 
selves."*^ By promising large rewards they induced agents to 
cause a disturbance in Venice. The pope even proposed to 
use the Inquisition and accuse the Doge of heresy. He also 
published a jubilee, in which he invited all Christians to join 
him in praying for the necessities of the church, and granted 
indulgences, absolution, and remission to all excepting those 
found in places interdicted, ** not comprehending them so 
much as in their number whose prayers he implored". At 
that time a jubilee was much wished for by the people of Italy, 
and the pope hoped that the Venetians would insist on taking 
part in it. The banished Jesuits announced to their Venetian 
adherents that they had, by papal dispensation, power to grant, 
and would grant, the jubilee ^' to such persons who would 
observe the conditions by them propounded, among which 
these were some : not to goe to Masse , not to approve the 
publique reasons and actions." ^- The Jesuits also tried to 
get their adherents to come to the confines of the state , that 
there they might influence them ; and very often they entered 
the state in disguise for the same purpose. They published 
indulgences in favor of those who would observe the interdict 
or would persuade others to observe it. They forged letters 



*^ Sarpi, Quarrels of Paul F, 97-98. 

^^ Ibid., 103-104. 
44 



Ibid., 140-142. 



56 THE INTERDICT 

in the name of Genoa and spread them in Venice, they scat- 
tered polemical writings, they labored in other countries that 
Venetian ambassadors should receive affronts, they tried to 
induce states to promise that they would not let Venice levy 
men among them, and menaced any that would help Venice. 
Ecclesiastics in Milan tried to stir up the people by declaring 
marriages contracted in the time of the interdict to be void. 
Pro-Venetian writings were put on the index, and, finally, 
attempts were made to embroil Venice in war.*^ These vari- 
ous expedients to bring the city to submission, though in this 
instance futile, are suggestive of what could be expected to 
follow a refusal to observe an interdict. 

It seems proper to inquire at this point what recognition or 
value was accorded to ministrations performed during an inter- 
dict. That the question arose in the minds of those inter- 
dicted, and that it was raised by the clergy, not, however, 
without the motives extending beyond the mere question of 
the validity of forbidden ministrations, appears from the ac- 
count of the Venetian interdict. In departing the Jesuits left 
instructions concerning the interdict, and the Theatines did 
likewise, "but in such a confusion and in so great haste, being 
not able to consult together, they did not well accord with the 
Jesuites, as also the Jesuites disagreed amongst themselves; 
whence it came to passe that their adherents proceeded di- 
versly, some being of opinion that all the Sacraments admin- 
tered by the Priests that stayed were nullities, and therefore 
that it was not lawfull to adore the holy Eucharist, as before : 
Others esteemed that to heare Masse was only a veniall sinne, 
and others held it a sin most grievous, although the Sacra- 
ment were truly celebrated."^ Disagreements of this charac- 
ter were either surprisingly few, or they did not find their way 
into available accounts. To question the validity of services 
which, once performed, were over and left no tangible effects, 

*^ Sarpi, Quarrels of Paul V, 135-137, 189, 197-198, 200. 
^^IdU, 98. 



THE INTERDICT IN FORCE 57 

was futile, for they could not be revoked. This is probably 
the reason why any question that arose had to do with the 
validity of acts which had tangible effects and could be re- 
voked, such as marriage or burial. It has already been stated 
that ordinarily marriage was not prohibited. Brae ton, how- 
ever, relates that the legality of a marriage was questioned 
because it occurred in time of interdict ; *^ and during the in- 
terdict on Venice there were ecclesiastics who considered mar- 
riages contracted in the city void.^^ Questions of this sort 
may be expected to arise over any matter open to some doubt ; 
but they do not, in the face of authority to the contrary, dis- 
prove the legality of marriages contracted during interdict."^^ 
That the validity of burial was not questioned, though in a few 
instances the dead were exhumed, is proved by the fact that 
some bodies buried during the interdict of La Charity were al- 
lowed to remain on condition that satisfaction was made by 
the heirs. ^^ Canonists are quite agreed that bodies buried 
during interdict may remain after relaxation. ^^ To be sure, 
bodies of persons excommunicated or interdicted nominatim 
had to be exhumed, but such burials would have been illegal 
had there been no interdict and are no exception to the rule 
just given. ^^ Those, however, who had performed inhibited 
burial were excommunicated.^^ These facts bring one to the 
conclusion that ministrations performed in contravention of 
interdict possessed their usual efficacy, though whoever was 

^'^Bracton, De Legibus, lib. V, Tract. V, c. 19, sec. 11 (R. Ser.)^ VI, 
313. In the interdict of England (1208) marriage was prohibited, which 
may be the reason why the marriage was questioned in this case. 

*^ Sarpi, Quarrels of Paul V, 197-198. 

*^ (a) Andreae, Trad, Vtiliss., Decimus Quartus: ** . . . quod si 
laici contrahunt matrimonium, tenet matrimonium." (b) See above, p. 
i6ff. 

^° This means, no doubt, that the heirs paid the burial fees, which would 
in the natural course of events have come to the priests. See above, n. 10. 

^' (a) Kober, XXI, 337f. (b) Andreae, Tract. Utiliss., sec. 27. (c) 
Cone. Prov. Scoticanum, 1255, c. 24, in Wilkins, Cone, I, 610. 

5^ Andreae, Tract, Utiliss,^ sec. 28. 

«Kober,XXI, 337f. 



58 THE INTERDICT 

guilty of the violation fell under such penalties as the church 
affixed. 

It now remains to consider the actual effects of interdicts. 
This point might be briefly dismissed with the sweeping gen- 
eralization that often interdicts produced the contemplated 
effects. The sources bring sufficient evidence that sacraments, 
ministrations, and burial ceased now and then in consequence 
of interdict. Marriages, as says a modern historian, were 
solemnized at graves instead of altars.^* This statement is in 
general sustained by the report from the Annals of Dunstable 
that marriages and the churching of women took place at the 
church door.^^ More positive evidence that marriages occurred 
in time of interdict comes from an agreement of the Bishops 
of Orleans and Auxerre with Philip Augustus, in v/hich they 
promise that they will not draw into question any marriage 
contracted according to the form and the approved custom of 
the church, unless there would have been cause to question 
the marriage had there been no interdict on their dioceses. ^^ 
This agreement, though it shows positively that men married 
during interdict, gives reason to say that the validity of that 
matrimony was questioned. There was manifestly a sentiment 
that all was not right with marriage in interdicted districts, for 
Hoveden relates that the marriage of Louis, son of Philip 
Augustus, to Blanche of Castile, took place in Normandy be- 
cause of the interdict in France ; ^^ and from another source it 
appears that the Count of Ponthieu withdrew to Rouen with 
the young sister of Philip Augustus to receive the nuptial bene- 
diction.^^ Such is the clear and unambiguous evidence re- 
garding marriages. Other sources furnish only inferential evi- 
dence : in April, 1208, one month after the laying of the 

^* Hurler, I, 376, n. 152. 

^^Chron. Dunstapl., ad an. 1208 {R. Ser.), Ill, 30. 

*^ (a) That is, any marriage contracted after the relaxation by the Arch- 
bishop of Sens, (b) Lebeuf, Mem. Dioc. d^ Auxerre^ IV, Preuves, No. 
113- 

^' Hoveden, Chron. ad an. 1200 {R. Ser.), IV, 137-138. 

^Bibl, de VEcole des Charles, XXXIII, 599. 



THE INTERDICT IN FORCE 



59 



interdict on England, John gave his assent to the marriage of 
Richard Furmi to a certain Matilda, and ordered the marriage 
to be performed if she desired ; ^^ whether she was so disposed, 
and whether the marriage occurred, does not appear. But, 
whether it did or not, the point of importance is that it was 
ordered performed in spite of the fact that the interdict then 
existing forbade marriage. ^"^ From that time on to January 
24, 1 2 14, neither Close, Patent, nor Charter Rolls give good 
cause even to infer a marriage. This, in view of the papal 
sentence forbidding marriage , is significant ; and it assumes 
real importance when it is discovered that within a year after 
the submission of John to the Pope the Rolls mention at least 
six marriages which are permitted or for which arrangements 
are made.^^ 

More definite evidence has been preserved relating to burial. 
In one account of the results of the interdict it is stated that 
Leopold of Austria remained unburied, and that Raymond VI 

^^ Rot, Claus,, I, no. 

^^Inn., 0pp., IV, col. 190, No. 136. 

^^ (a) Rot. Glaus., I, 162. This permission was given after submission, 
but before the relaxation of the interdict. About January 24, 1214. (b) 
Rot. Claus., I, 162, about January 28, 1 2 14, and Rot. Fat., I, 109, 
January 26-28, 1214. King John serves notice that he has given Isabella, 
Countess of Gloucester, as wife to Geoffrey de Mandeville. In February 
of the same year Geoffrey had failed to fulfil the conditions [Rot. Claus., 
I, 163, about February 8, 1214). Hence the marriage probably did not 
occur. However, by August some agreement seems to have been reached 
and John again serves notice of giving Isabella to Geoffrey {^Rot. Claus., 
I, 209, August 9, 1214). This delay was evidently not due to the inter- 
dict, (c) Rot. Claus.y I, 163. The king permits the heir of Theobald 
Walter to marry about February 8, 12 14. This permission also was given 
before relaxation, (d) Rot. Claus., I, 168. The king assents to the 
marriage of Robert to a certain widow, July 10, 1 2 14. This is after the 
relaxation of the interdict, (e) Rot. Claus., I, 190. Marriage of Mar- 
garet, daughter of WiUiam of Warwick, is allowed, if she is so inclined, 
March 15, 1215. ("f) Rot. Chart., I, 197-198, March, 1214. Marriage 
is arranged for. The point of importance is, that permission to marry was 
given after John's submission, though none was given in the preceding 
years of the interdict. This is certainly not due to any regard of John for 
the interdict, but is to be attributed to the fact that as long as John and 
the pope disagreed no one sought permission to marry; as soon, however, 
as John became the vassal of the pope, permission was sought in anticipa- 
tion of the relaxation of the interdict. 



6o THE INTERDICT 

of Toulouse lay unburied until he was eaten by rats.^^ Those 
cases were, however, not the result of interdict but of excom- 
munication. Though these instances do not bear upon the 
matter of buria] in time of interdict, they are excellent exam- 
ples of that type of production the author of which has been 
impressed with the dramatic or ** fulminating " qualities of the 
interdict and has endeavored at the cost of any violence to 
sources and any distortion of facts to produce a highly read- 
able story. Probably historians less remote from the time 
of which they wrote had similar propensities ; but they, at 
least, lived when they could know from personal experience 
the truth of what they wrote , and in so far they are more cred- 
ible than their modern competitors. Granting that the very 
gruesomeness of unburied bodies may have caused the chroni- 
clers to exaggerate, their accounts are here set down for what 
they are worth. It is related that during the interdict on 
France (1200) bodies were not bestowed in cemeteries, and 
that some even lay unburied. ^^ In Normandy corpses lay on 
the streets and caused great stench among the living.^* In 
Bremen the corruption of bodies which lay unburied in the 
cemeteries offended men so much that the sentence was tem- 
pered.^^ In England (1208) the dead were carried out of 
cities and interred, like dogs, in by-ways and ditches, without 
prayers and the ministrations of priests ; clerks and even 
bishops lay unburied outside of cemeteries. ^^ Why bodies lay 

«2 Hurler, I, 376, n. 158. 

^^(a) Gesta, c. 52. (b) Hoveden, Chron. ad an. 1200 {R. Ser.), IV, 
137-138. 

«*Rog. Wend., Flor. Hist, ad an. 1197 (R. Ser.), I, 266. 

«s Arnoldus, Chron. Slav., lib. V, c. 22, in MGSS., XXI, 199. **Cum 
igitur civitas Bremensis hac pestilentia diutius laboraret et corruptio 
cadaverum que inhumata in cimiteriis jacebant homines plurimum lederet, 
temperata est sententia." 

^^(a) Matt. Par., Chron. maj.adan. 1208 (7?. Ser.), H, 521. (b) Gesta, 
c. 131. *' . . regularium sed etiam episcoporum cadavera servarerentur 
extra cimiterium inhumata." (c) Chron. B. Iterii, ad an. 1210, in Duples- 
Agier, Chron. de S. Martial de Limoges^ 76. ** . . . audivimus rumores 
. . . quod . . . episcopi defuncti inhumati jacerent." (d) Le Neve, 
Fastiy in, 284. Philip of Poitiers unburied. 



THE INTERDICT IN FORCE 6 1 

unburied is to be inferred from a bull of the Bishop of London, 
recently found in St. Bartholomew's Hospital. ^"^ Because of 
the interdict the dead could not be buried in the regular ceme- 
teries ; and the city, as was to be expected, had no burial 
sites for such an occasion, and was in dire need of a place in 
which it could temporarily bestow its dead. London authori- 
ties, finding that the dead lay unburied, finally helped them- 
selves out of their difficulty by asking the officials of St. Bar- 
tholomew for the temporary use of an area lying east of the hos- 
pital. The prior and the canons, the procurator and the breth- 
ren, seeing the obvious need of the city, agreed to this request, 
and the transfer of the area was made by the authority of 

®'' ** Willelmus Dei gracia Londinensis episcopus omnibus sancte matris 
ecclesie filiis per episcopatum Londinensem constitulis salutem in auctore 
salutis eternae. Cum nuper apostolica jussione per totam Angliam fuisset 
generalis interdicti sentencia promulgata adeo quidem ut nusquam liceret 
defunctorum corpora, sicut mos erat, Christiane tradere sepulture, viri 
nobiles et dilecti in Christo filii H[enricus] maior et cives Londoniarum a 
dilectis filiis priore et canonicis Sancii Bartholomei necnon a procuratore ac 
fratribus hospitalis eorundem postularent ut eis aream quandam hospitali 
Sancti Bartholomei ex orientali parte adjacentem ad publicam mortuorum 
suorum sepulturam indulgerent. Quorum piam peticionem attendentes, 
memorati tarn canonici quam fratres, simulque urgentem tocius urbis neces- 
sitatem considerantes, postulacionibus eorumdem consensum adhibuere feli- 
cem et benignum. Verum ne sub pretextu pietatis istius oriri possit im- 
pietatis occasio sano quidem et salubri consilio provisum est in communi ut 
area memorata, mortnis deferendis secundum que cives disposuerunt depu- 
tanda, circum.quaque cJaudatur arcto aditu ad usum sepulture ci\ibus reser- 
vando. Cautum est eciam diligenter ut nulli liceat corpora defunctorum 
quos in hospitali predicto mori contigerit in eadem area sepeHre. Omnes 
enim ejusdem hospitalis tam fratres quam pauperes aliunde venientes du- 
rante interdicto, sicut et ante fieri consuevit secundum arbitrium canoni- 
corum in loco competenti ab eis canonicis providendo sepelientur. Sane 
quam cito, gracia divina largiente, sacrosanctam ecclesiam pristina tran- 
quillitate ac libera sacramentorum suorum observancia gaudere contigerit, 
locus sepedictus ad jus et possessionem fratrum hospitalis libere revertetur. 
Dum tamen nulli omnino homini liceat ulterius in eadem area defunctum 
aliquem sepelire. Hec autem que scripta sunt ut futuris temporibus 
inter memoratos canonicos et fratres hospitalis pax inconcussa ser\^etur 
sigilli nostri testimonio curavimus communire. Hiis testibus . . ." The 
bull is not dated, but the witnesses' names put it beyond doubt that the 
document relates to the great interdict of England under John. A tran- 
script of this bull was found in the cartulary of St. Bartholomew's Hos- 
pital, London, and it was printed for the first time in St, Bartholomew's 
Hospital Journal (August, 1905), Vol. XII, No. ii. 



62 THE INTERDICT 

Bishop William of London.^ This bull gave the city permission 
to enclose the area, and ordered that all deceased citizens, 
except members or residents of the hospital, must be buried 
within this lot. These arrangements were possibly sanitary 
regulations to insure the public against epidemics by giving the 
city officials control of burials ; perhaps, too, the city collected 
a burial fee and to prevent evasion of this fee ordered all dead 
to be buried in the authorized place. The dead of the hospi- 
tal, however, were not to be buried in the lot; for them the 
hospital must provide a place. ^^ The ground was ceded to the 
city for the term of the interdict only, and was to revert to the 
hospital immediately after the reconciliation of church and 
state. The eagerness to secure canonical burial is shown by 
a subterfuge resorted to in the county of Vendome. Bishop 
Ivo of Chartres in laying the interdict had exempted paupers 
from the order prohibiting burial ; Abbot Geoffrey criticized 
the exemption, and added that in consequence of the favor 
shown the poor no one lacked canonical burial, since all called 
themselves paupers. ^*^ 

Lesser ecclesiastical functions were also affected by the in- 
terdict. During an interdict on the cathedral of Auxerre, the 
anniversary celebration of the dedication of the church was 
postponed because of the silence of the church. The chap- 
ter, which was responsible for the interdict, forbade all canons 
or ^^ tortiers '* to dine with the bishop, except at times custom- 
ary and necessary to preserve rights, on pain of being consid- 
ered perjured and of losing a month's distributions. It was 

^^The bull was probably issued soon after the beginning of the interdict, 
or between July 14 and September 29, 1208, for which period Bishop 
William, who had been banished by John almost immediately after the 
interdict was proclaimed, had a safe-conduct and came to England. He 
was also in England in 1209. Perhaps the bull was issued abroad, but 
the list of witnesses makes this seem improbable. 

^^The brethren of the hospital possessed a privilege from Lucius III, 
December 18, 1183, granting them and their household burial during in- 
terdict, but this was useless in view of Innocent's order that no privilege 
should stand. 

■^^Goffridus Vindocin., Epp., II, 16, in Migne, Pat. Lat.^ 157, col. 83. 



THE INTERDICT IN FORCE 63 

also ordered that a chair in the chapter- house should no longer 
be prepared for the bishop ; and that whoever assisted when 
the bishop officiated should, if an intern, lose his distributions, 
and, if an extern, be refused the ornaments of the church. "^^ 
Visitation of churches, however, was continued by the Arch- 
bishop of Reims, though all the churches of Reims were under 
interdict. ^^ He was at one time during the interdict requested 
to lay the comer-stone of a church ; ^^ and, though there is no 
evidence that he complied, the very request argues that such a 
ceremony was allowed, an opinion which is supported by the 
fact that church-building and repairing were not prohibited by 
the interdict. '^'^ Instruction of scholars w^as permitted during 
the English interdict j"^^ but the election of scholars to clerics, 
during an Italian interdict, was canceled by the Roman pon- 
tiff ."^^ Evidences of gifts to churches are found everywhere in 
the Rolls." 

That the cessation of so many ecclesiastical services and 
ministrations caused a burden for some one is obvious. Upon 
whom this burden fell is a matter of no little importance. 
Did the person or group of persons responsible for the sen- 
tence actually bear the brunt, or did the weight of it all fall 
upon the people in general or upon the church and the clergy? 
Since the interdict was generally used to bring some offender 
to terms, one would naturally suppose that the offender bore 
the brunt of the sentence. Even if the offender directly suf- 
fered no more than those around him, indirectly he was the 
principal sufferer, for it was the expressed design of the inter- 

^^ Lebeuf, Mem, Dioc, d^Auxerre, II, 69-71. 

"^2 The interdict probably affected only the city; whereas the visitation of 
the archbishop may have been to churches outside of the city. 

■^^Marlot, Hist, de Rei7ns, III, 573f. 

"^^ Rot. Pat,, I, 90, March 25 and 30, 1209. Ihe repairing and build- 
ing of churches are implied in these letters. 

"^^Inn., 0pp., IV, col. 190, No. 136. 

^6 Inn. Ill, Epp., II, 241 (Potth., 897). 

■^^ (a) Davidsohn, Philip II und Ingeborg^ 108. (b) Rot, Pat, and Rot, 
Glaus,, passim. 



64 THE INTERDICT 

diet to manufacture a public sentiment which should operate 
against the delinquent in such a way as to bring him into sub- 
mission. "^^ Public sentiment depended to a considerable de- 
gree upon the justice of the sentence, on the popularity of the 
judge with his inferiors, but especially on the attachment of 
the people to the church. To a mediaeval populace, fully im- 
bued with the teachings of the church, the sacraments and 
offices of the church were necessities of life in time present 
and eternal ; ^^ and a deprivation of those necessities was to all 
the faithful a grievous calamity. The more sincerely the peo- 
ple were attached to the church and her teachings, the more 
did they miss the forbidden offices, and the more probable was 
it that they would heed the sentence and by their unrest force 
the offender to terms. ^^ If public sentiment, no matter from 
what source it arose, was powerful enough to bring the offen- 
der to submission, the interdict was effective. But usually 
interdicted offenders were at the same time under pressure of 
a political or military character, and an interdict thus interwo- 
ven with politics was itself practically a political measure. In 
the case of King John, political conditions were such as to make 
an estimate of the power of the interdict almost impossible. 
In hardly any case of submission can one determine the power 
of the interdict ; one can, at best, say that the sentence played 
an important and possibly decisive part by putting in a sacri- 
legious light all the acts of the person under interdict, and in 

■^^Goffridus Vindocin., Epp., II, i6, in Migne, Pat, Lat., 157, col. 84. 
** . . ut universa plebs, quae nostram iniuriam et ejus malitiam non 
ignorat et cui illius iniquitas multum displicet nee maior iustitia displiceret, 
hinc occasione accepta proclamaret in eum, et sic quoniam Dei aniore 
iniusta actione spontaneus non vult desistere, clamore simul et timore 
hominum desisteret vel invitus." 

^^ How necessary the ministrations of the church seemed to a mediaeval 
populace may be seen from the fact, alleged by Pope Clement V as known 
to him through frequent complaints by prelates and from his own experi- 
ence in earher years, that in time of interdict many clerics were induced, 
openly or privily, to make holes, and even windows, in their church doors 
to enal-.le excluded persons to participate in the services *' behind closed 
doors". C. I. de sent, excom. in Clement. 5. 10. 

^ La Cl^de, Hist, de Portugal, II, I56f. 



THE INTERDICT IN FORCE 65 

this way alienating any support that might have accrued from 
an otherwise favorable public opinion. Yet, difficult as it is to 
estimate the exact effects, there are instances in which it is 
clear that the interdict had considerable power ; notable ex- 
amples are the interdicts of Florence,^^ Auxerre, and France.^^ 
Indeed, the interdict was not lightly invited by any one. 
Princes wavered ^^ even at the threat, prayed to have the sen- 
tence of the interdict removed, and, if they opposed it at all, 
did so by most vigorous measures.^* Many an unruly person 
yielded under the cessation of religious ministrations.^^ 

Whatever power the interdict exerted on the offender, he 
was not the only one to suffer from it. The very hope of 
church authorities that the interdict would cause the public to 
rise against the offender makes it evident that the district in- 
terdicted also experienced the pressure of discipline. Did this 
pressure fall upon the commercial, political, and legal institu- 
tions of a community or upon the inhabitants themselves? 
Excepting in Florence, Venice, and several lesser cities, trade 
went on during the interdict much as before, so far as can be 

^^ Lea, Inquisition^ II, 278-281. 

®^ See Appendix, cases 57 and 88. 

8^ (a) Mat. Hist. Becket {R. Ser.^, VII, 474!. Cf, Diceto, Imag. 
Hist. [R. Ser.), I, 346. When it appeared that the interdict of England 
(11 71) could not be prevented otherwise, the king's agents promised on 
oath that their sovereign would obey, and thus averted the interdict, (b) 
Mat. Hist. Becket ^R. Ser.),Vl, 172. "Timebat enim rex excom- 

municari, universamque terramsuaminterdici ." (c) Gerv. Canterb., 

Opp Hist. {R. Ser.), I, 234. Henry, in his fear, ordered the ports guarded 
so that letters could not enter the realm, (d; d'Achery, Spicil.^ Ill, 610. 
King Andrew of Hungary showed the greatest sorrow on being interdicted. 

8* (a) Mat. Hist. Becket iyR, Ser.), IV, 166. Henry II tried to bribe 
the Curia not to lay the interdict, (b) Phihp Augustus also tried to buy 
the Curia. See Appendix, case 57, France. (c) John of England 
stopped at nothing in his efforts to defeat the pope. 

®^ (a) Gesta Hen. II [R. Ser.), I, 8. *'Arctatus ergo rex Anglorum 
severitate canonica tandem adquievit . ." (b) Gesta, c. 58. Leon 

and Portugal were interdicted because of incestuous marriages. *'Unde 
quod illegitime factum fuerat est penitus revocatum." (c) King Richard 
and Philip Augustus were threatened with interdict and consequently made 
a truce. See Appendix, case 13. (d) The Archbishop of Salerno was 
released at threat of interdict, (e) Citizens of Oxford were brought to 
submission by interdict. See Appendix, case 81, 



66 THE INTERDICT 

gathered from accounts. ^^ Governments continued in their 
regular courses : taxes were levied/^ payments were made to 
and by the treasury ,^^ the chancellery issued letters attested as 
before ,^^ councils met,^ wars were waged ,^^ and crusades were 
urged. ^^ Legal functions also continued ; grants of land and 
other properties were made,^^ real estate was transferred,^^ liti- 
gation continued/'^ oaths were taken ,^^ testaments were con- 

^6 (a) Lea, Inquisition^ II, 278, 281. (b) Ibid.^ Ill, 195. Venice, 
1309. (c) Pflugk-Httg., Iter Italicum, 516. (d) Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 
143 (Potth., 3501). (e) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 102 (Potth., 1947). (0 
Hontheim, Hist. Trevir,, I, Urk., 491. Cited from Raumer, Gesch. 
Hoheiist.^ VI, 161. (g) Gall. Christ. ^ X, ii, 61. If the people do 
not yield '' faciatis redditus ac debita et alia bona ipsorum in nundinis 
ubicumque reperta fuerint . . . detineri." Called excommunication. 

«7 Rigord, De Gest. Ph. Aug. ad an. 1199, in Rec, XVII, 51. *« . . . 
tertiam partem omnium bonorum suorum eis violenter abstulit. A burgen- 
sibus suis intolerabiles tallias et exactiones inauditas extorsit. " 

^^ (a) Rot. Claus., I, 116, May 16, 1212. (bj The pipe rolls give no 
evidence of decreased business during the years of the interdict. 

^^ (a) Rot. Glaus, and Rot. Fat, 1208-1214, passim. In England let- 
ters vfere attested by the Bishop of Winchester, Rot. Glaus., I, no, in, 
116, T 17, etc., etc.; by the Archdeacon of Huntingdon, 2<^eV., 116, 11 7, etc. 
(b) Bibl. Nat., MSS., Coll. Moreau, vol. 100, pp. 178-197. Cited from 
Davidsohn, Philip II und Ingeborg, 107. The Bishop of Paris attested a 
sale during the P'rench interdict, 

^^ Quell. Gesch. Siadt K'dln, VI, 7. The Council of Cologne was al- 
lowed to celebrate mass in time of interdict at its council sessions. 

^^ Wars suffered somewhat from the unwillingness of men under inter- 
dict to enter battle. Thus, in Leon, the Christians hesitated to enter battle 
against Saracens, Gesta, c. 58. And the Enghsh soldiers hesitated to 
march under the leadership of John against the pious William of Scotland, 
Gerv. Canterb. {R. Ser.), II, 102-103. 

^^ Gesta, c. 84. During the interdict of France, Innocent sent letters to 
France urging a crusade. 

9^ (a) Rot. Glaus., I, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 126. (b) Rot. Ghart., 
I, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191. (c) Rot. Pat., I, 82. 

9* (a) See above, n. 87. (b) Cartul. de S. Euverte d'Orl^ans, Bibl. Nat. , 
MS. Lat. 10,089, p. 189. Cited from Davidsohn, Philip II und Inge- 
borgy 107. The monastery of S. Euverte d'Orl^ans purchased a house, July 
15, 1200. 

^^ (a) Placit. Abbreviation p. 6j, col. I (1210). **Elias. . . captus 
pro contumacia sua eo quod contemsit uxorem suam venit et dixit se velle 
stare considerationem sancte ecclesie et inde invenit plegios." (b) Rot. 
Glaus., I, 149, September 9, 1213. King John determines the validity of 
an advowson. 

^^ (a) Rot. Pat., I, 97, 98b, loob, 106. (b) Rot. Glaus., I, 59, Janu- 
ary 3,1213. **. . . per sacramentum xii liberorum et legalium homi- 
num.*' 



THE INTERDICT IN FORCE 67 

firmed ,^^ and so on through a long list of legal activities.^^ 
But the residents of a district experienced no little material 
discomfort from the interdict. The joy with which they hailed 
the removal of a sentence indicates the sorrow they felt during 
its operation.^ Princes in time of interdict took occasion to 
oppress their subjects with burdensome taxes/^^ lawlessness 
prevailed, and brigandage flourished. ^^^ To add to these evils 
factions developed /^^ and either those observing or those ig- 
noring the interdict were oppressed ; in Limoges, for example, 
those persons who heeded the interdict were fined by the op- 
posing party .^^^ Ambassadors were affected by interdicts laid 
at home ,^^^ and even travelers in an interdicted country suffered 
the same inconvenience as the inhabitants.^^^ 

^^ (a) Rot. Pat, , I, 99. The king confirmed the testament of Gilbert, 
Bishop of Rochester, (b) Hontheim, Hist, Trevir.^ I, Urk. 491. Cited 
from Raumer, Gesch. Hohenst,^ VI, 161. 

^^ The material cited above is mainly from English sources. For this 
reason it may not be quite typical. However, Enghsh sources for the 
period of Innocent III are more complete and available than those of 
other countries, which may account for the fact that similar material is not 
equally abundant for interdicts elsewhere. 

^^ See below, chapter IV. 

^^^ (a) See above, n. Z'j. (b) In England John oppressed first the 
clerks and then the people. 

^^^ Mariana, De Rebus Hispan,^ lib. XIII, c. 12. ** Latrocinia et male- 
ficia quae ex superiorum temporum [of interdict] licentia et Sanctii Regis 
socordia impune grassabantur tota provincia sustulit." 

i^^lnn.lll, Epp., XVI, 134 (Potth., 4839). '^ Mandamus quatenuspost- 
quam interdictum Angliae fuerit relaxatum omnes conjurationeset factiones, 
si quae occasione discordiae inter regnum et sacerdotium factae sunt, 
denunties auctoritate nostra irritas et inanes. '* 

103 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 97 (Potth., 1934). (b) Tractatus de Inter- 
dicto, Proposit. VII. The Seven Theologians consider it just that those 
who observe the interdict of Venice should lose their properties. *'Eccle- 
siasticis hujus Dominii Justus imminet metus amissionis vitae et bonorum 
suorum et etiam multorum malorum tam privatonim quam publicorum, 
quae ipsorum propinquis inde evenient, si interdictum servaverint." 

10* Sarpi, Quarrels of Paul F, 108, 135-137. Attempts were made by 
papal agents to exclude Venetian ambassadors from church services. The 
King of Spain did not use his chapel for many days, in order to avoid de- 
claring himself on the status of the ambassador, ibid., 112- 113. The 
Duke of Savoy acted similarly, ibid., 11 8-1 19. The Venetian agent at 
Nancy and all his house were excluded from confession. When news of 
the agreement of Venice and the pope reached Spain, the papal nuncio 



68 THE INTERDICT 

It was to be expected that the guilty person and the district 
included with him would both feel the interdict, but not that 
the church would suffer from the discipline she used. As 
a matter of fact the church and the hierarchy often suffered 
very much from the interdict. In the first place, the persons 
whose misdeeds provoked the sentence often resisted what 
they regarded as the aggression of the church by most violent 
counter-measures. In the second place, the public instead of 
rising against the offenders sometimes rose against the author- 
ity pronouncing the cessation of services. ^^® The dangers of 
such an occurrence were fully realized by the church. She 
knew that public opinion could neither be foretold nor created 
at will, and therefore she usually repeated her threats ,^^^ and 
actually promulgated the sentence only as a last resort. ^°^ 

there, Easter being near, advised the ambassador of Venice to abstain from 
communion at Easter, considering that shortly after he might be present 
with the pope's permission. The ambassador refused to receive his coun- 
sel and v^^as admitted to all ceremonies, ibid.^ 410-41 1. 

^^^ (a) Bishop Hugh of Lincoln, traveling in France, was obliged to re- 
tire to a monastery in order to be able to celebrate mass. Vita S. Hugonis 
Lincol. {R. Ser.), Hb. v, c. 15, p. 324. (b) Capefigue, II, 145, says that 
on the death of nobles their names were not entered on the registers. 
Hurter inclines to doubt this statement. The citations given by Capefigue 
do not justify his contention. 

^^^ (a^ Steph. Tornac, Ep. 235, in Migne, Fat. Lat., 211, col. 504. 
" Insultat nobis protervitas laicorum et occasione sumpta de silentio nostro, 
pravis comminationibus armati, in publicis et privatis colloquiis confiant 
ejectionem sacerdotum, direptionem rerum, contumelias person arum, 
Dicunt se solvere quod non rapuerunt, pro peccato alterius injuste puniri, 
sacramentis carere quibus utpote catholici parati sunt parere." (b) 
Ibid.^ 237, in ibid.^ col. 506. Stephen, after relating his endeavors to 
enforce an interdict, adds, '*Pro his omnibus digna reporto jurgiorum 
stipendia, increpationes in populis, indignationem et iram . . " (c) 
Innocent III (Epp., II, 75; Gesta, c. 58; Potth., 716) relates that the 
Spanish bishops complained because the laity did not pay their customary 
dues, (d) Cone. Lugdun. II, 1274, c. 31, in Hard., VII, 718. The 
council of Lyons took the clergy under its protection because they were so 
much abused by the people, (e) Clemens XI, Const. "Ad Plurimas," 
1 713, in Bullar. Ro7n.^ XXI, 588. Secular and regular clergy suffered 
confiscation of property, imprisonment, and exile. 

^^^ Cf. above, p. 37. 

^^^Conc. Ravennat., 1314, c. 9, in Hard., VII, 1390. *' Quoniam ex 
sententiis interdicti non est dubium multa oriri scandala . . . propterea 
non debent sine urgenti necessitate proferri . . . '^ 



THE INTERDICT IN FORCE 69 

Threats of interdict could do the church but little harm ; and, 
if successful, they might do her great good. Wisely therefore 
did the church, as far as possible, rely upon them rather than 
upon the actual sentence ; for, in the words of a contemporary 
of Henry II, ^* It is not well that the sentence should go into 
effect when the threat alone easily accomplishes what is 
desired ".^^^ 

When, however, the interdict was laid, and was opposed by 
potentates or parishioners, the church and clergy experienced 
grave hardships. Particularly did ecclesiastical property be- 
come subject to confiscation, seizure, and damage. ^^^ Reve- 
nues of the church were seriously diminished ; ^^^ so seriously , 
indeed, that in Genoa it was at one time found expedient not 
to reassign vacant prebends, but instead to devote these in- 
comes to the common use.^^^ Monastic orders suffered great 
losses ; but, as they were less in touch with the populace and 
often enjoyed papal privileges of exemption, their hardships 
were not so grave as those of the secular clerks. In one case 
the clerics had to get special permission to sell their pro- 
duce ; ^^^ in another case clerics who observed the interdict 

109 Mat. Hist. Becket [B. Ser,), VII, 175. 

110 (a) Const. Galteri Archiep. Senon., c. 14, in Hard., VI, 560. (b) 
Coggeshall, in Rec, XVIII, 91. (c) Rigord, De Gest. Ph. Aug. ad an. 
1 199, in Rec.^ XVII, 51. '* . . . bona eorum diripuit ..." (d) 
Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 97 (Potth., 1934). '* . . . bona ceperunt eorum 

. . " (e) Chron. S. Denis ad an. 1209, in Ke<^"> XVII, 394. (f) 
Rot, Claus, I, 107, 108, no, III, 126, 130, 174. (g) Rot. Chart. , I, 
203-204, 214. (h) Rot. Fat.y I, loi, 102, 124. (ij Giry, Hist, de S. 
Omer, 138. 

111(a) Chron. S. Denis ad an. 1 199, in Rec, XVII, 387. Fees and 
rents of the clergy were seized, (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., II, 75 (Potth., 716). 
Spanish bishops complain that, because of the interdict, ** cum clerici 
laicis spirituaha ministrare non possent, laici clericis temporaha subtra- 
hebant, oblationes, primitias et decimas detinentes. " (c) Mansi, XXIII, 
1 184, c. 4. A decree against laymen who fail henceforth to pay tithes in 
time of interdict. 

^1^ See Appendix, case 67. Case of Genoa. 

'^^^ Rot. Claus., I, 114. *' Mandatnm est . . . quod permittant Archi- 
episcopos, Episcopos, Abbates, et omnes viros rehgios et omnes clericos 
vendere blada sua per summas usque ad festum S. Katerine." 



70 THE INTERDICT 

were exiled or outlawed or imprisoned /^* and , if exiled , they 
dared not enter the realm without royal safe-conduct.^^^ It 
even came to pass that an indignant populace attacked the 
clergy for depriving it of religious consolations. ^^^ In England 
vacancies remained unfilled and the king retained the custody 
in the meantime ; ^^^ many clerks chose to bear the expense of 
buying peace from the oppressor rather than to incur the 
greater losses and dangers attendant upon continuance of 
hostility .^^^ The church endeavored to protect the hierarchy, 
and an inevitable condition for the relaxation of the interdict 
was the restoration of properties taken from ecclesiastics and 
satisfaction for damage done.^^^ In England a commission 
was appointed to estimate this damage. ^^^ It is manifest that 
the interdict was not a care- free vacation for the clergy, but 
that they shared with the populace the harmful effects of the 
cessation of spiritual ministrations. 

"^ (a) Clemens XI, Const. **Ad plurimas", 1713, in Bullar. Rom., 
XXI, 588. Girgenti, 1713. (b) See also the cases of France and 
Auxerre in Appendix, cases 57 and 88. 

^^'"^ Rot. Fat., I, 82. 

^^^ (a) See above, n. io6a. (b) Hocsemius, Hist. Pont. Leod. ad an. 
1255, in Chapeaville, II, 278!. ** . . , canonici pro parte a civitate 
recedunt interdictum ne violare cogantun" 

^^"^ Rot. Claus., I, 107, no, et passim. The patent rolls give similar 
evidence. 

118 (a) Rot. Claus., I, io8-ii3b. (b) Vita S. Hugonis Lincol., lib. V, 
c. 13 {R. Ser.), 303-304. ** . . . cum tempore interdicti Anglicani 
omnes fere ecclesiarum rectores, quos tamen in exiHum barbaricus regis 
furor minis coegerat interveniente pecunia bona sua redimerent a manu 
laicali ..." 

11^ (a) Const. Galteri Archiep. Senon., c. 14, in Hard., VI, 560. 
'* Praecipimus ut nullatenus relaxetur [interdictum] donee ad arbitrium et 
moderamen relaxantis presl)yteris parochialibus et damnis et perditis 
interdicti occasione illatis plane fuerit satisfactum vel de satisfaciendo 
cautum.'* (b) Cone. Skenninge, 1248, c. 8, in Ma^. f. d. K.-Gesch. d. 
Norderts (Munter), I, 188. (c) Inn. Ill, Epp., XV, 236 (Potth., 4398). 
*' . mandamus, quatenus concessiones, pactiones sive promissiones 

quas clerici seu rehgiosi viri cujuscunque professionis vel ordinis Joanni 
regi Angliae super ablatis vel extortis post interdictum fecerunt 
denuntietis irritas et inanes ... Si qui vero praedictorum noluerint 
ablata vel extorta repetere, detentores eorum nihilominus ipsa restituere 
compellatis." Cf. Rot. Fat., I, 124. (d) Marlot, Hist, de Reims, III, 
823-826, No. 183. 

120 i?^/. Claus.,\, io6b. 



THE INTERDICT IN FORCE yi 

Besides these material losses, the church experienced spir- 
itual harm through both the clergy and the people. Com- 
paratively little has been recorded regarding the effects of the 
interdict on the religious life of the clergy ; but that little 
shows that the effect was bad. They often disagreed on the 
question of observing the interdict, and this produced danger 
of schism. ^^^ Discontinuance of the daily services caused 
remissness among the clerks ; and, since they were perforce 
negligent of spiritual affairs, it is not surprising that they went 
unshaven and unkempt during interdict. ^^^ The regulars and 
the seculars disputed with each other over various privileges 
possessed by the former, especially over the right of burial. 
Ecclesiastical orders not infrequently had privileges granting 
them the right to bury devotees regardless of interdict/^^ in 
consequence of which they endeavored to secure burial pledges 
from as many laymen as possible. ^'^* Under such conditions 

^21 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 295 (Potth., 712). (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 
15. ** . . . timendum esset de filia [Gallicana ecclesia], ne a paternis 
prorsus exorbitaret vestigiis, et quae ... in devotione sedis apostolicae 
solebat esse ferventior, ab ejus obsequio redderetur nimium aliena " 

(c) Hist. Episc. Autiss., c. 59, in Labbe, Nova Bibl., I, 481. (d) Inn. 
Ill, Epp., XII, 9 (Potth., 3686). (e) Mat. Hist. Becket {R. Ser.), V, 
321. Gilbert Foliet advises Alexander not to issue an interdict, and 
warns him of the danger of schism. 

^^^ (a) Dominicus Soto, in 4. distinct., 22. qu. , art. i. Cited from 
Pithou, Des Interdicts Eccl., 18-19. " Interdictum, quamvis ex una parte 
ad terrorem excommunicatorum conducat, ex altera tamen in periculum 
divini cultus vergit potissimum; nam tunc non solum populus desuetudine 
frequentandi divina officia, affectum eorum et sensum perdit, verum etiam 
et clerus ipse fit remissior, et ignavior ad eadem divina celebranda qua 
utique ratione et divina religio detrimentum patitur, et populus solet in 
moribus silescere." (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., XII, 9 (Potth., 3686). The 
Cistercians in England averred '* . . . quod ex dissuetudine celebrandi 
gravis in reHgione jactura et in ordine dissolutio secutura timetur." 
(c) Du Cange, Glossarium, under '* Interdictum". 

^^^ See below, chapter IV. 

12* Berengarius, Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat, 15415, fol. 232, col. IV. When 
a church and cemetery are interdicted it might happen, *' quod aliqui 
religiosi vel clerici seculares aliquos inducunt ad vovendum, jurandum, vel 
fide interposita seu aliter promittendum ut apud eorum ecclesias sepulturam 
eligant vel jam electam ulterius non invitent; si . tales in suis ecclesiis 
vel cimiteriis praesumpserint sepeliri ad restitutionem tam sepultorum cor- 
porum, si petantur, quam omnium que occasione sepulture illorum per- 
venerint ad eosdem . . . faciendam tenentur ..." 



72 



THE INTERDICT 



considerable loss might be suffered by the secular clergy because 
of the diversion of burial fees and the like into other channels. 
The losers invariably complained and sought redress, and with 
what success appears from the agreements in which some 
return of unusual incomes derived as a result of interdict is 
stipulated /=^^ 

If the frequent assertions of the sources are accepted as 
evidence, the effect of the interdict was more disastrous to the 
church through the harm done the laity than through harm 
done the clergy. Even when the church dominated the re- 
ligious situation the people grew cold in their allegiance, 
heresies flourished, vices increased; they so far forgot re- 
ligious ceremonies that, after an interdict was relaxed, they 
mocked and scoffed at the priests who were performing ser- 
vices. ^^^ Repeatedly the growth of heresies is ascribed to 
interdicts. Father Paul, the apologist of Venice, boldly de- 
clares that the numerous interdicts and excommunications of 
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were the cause for the 
great prevalence of heresies, which had begun at that time 
and had gained strength to his day.^'"^^ Following this line of 

^^^ See above, n. lo. 

^^^ (a) Gesta, c. 58. For quotation see below, p. 74: ** From heretics 
. . . ", etc. (b) Hist. Episc. Autiss. , in Labbe, Nova Bibl., I, 475. 
(c) C. 2. de sent, excom. Extrav. comm. 5. 10. *' . . adolescentes 
et parvuli, participantes rarins sacramenta, minus inflammantur et solidantur 
in fide, fidelium tepescit devotio, haereses pullulant et multiplicantur 
pericnla animarum." (d) C. ult. de sent, excom. VI. 5. il. "Quia 
vero ex districtione hujusmodi statntorum [of interdict] excrescit indevotio 
populi, pullulant haereses, et infinita pericula animarum insurgunt, ac 
ecclesiis sine culpa earum debita obsequia subtrahuntur . " (e) 

Cone. Ravennat., 1314, c. 19, in Hard , VH, 1390. *' Quoniam ex 
sententiis inlerdicti non est dubium multa oriri scandala, ex quibus non 
solum saepe puniuntur insontes, immo excrescit indevotio populi, pullulant 
haereses, ac ecclesiis ac ecclesiasticis personis sine culpa earum debita 
subtrahuntur obsequia . . "(f) The reply of Bellarmin to the Seven 
Theologians is as follows (Bellarmin, Risposia^ Proposit. VH): "In 
Uibino duro I'interdetto ancora piu longo tempo come gli stessi sette 
Dottori attestano nel discorso della quinta prop, et talmente fu asservato 
senza sospetto nessuno di violenza popolare, che bisogno poi usare molto dili- 
genza, et molte essortationi per ridurre il popolo alia frequenza delle messe. " 

'2^ Apologia P. M. Pauli, 531, col. i. '* . . haereses anno 1300 
natae, et hodie ad summum evectae, aliunde ortum non duxerunt quam ab 
innumeris excommunicationibus et interdictis quae coeperunt ferri anno 



THE INTERDICT IN FORCE 73 

thought the interdict may be said to have had a significant 
part in producing the movement which finally culminated in 
the Reformation. If Christians were deprived of the benefits 
of ecclesiastical ministrations when they were in no way cul- 
pable , they might reasonably conclude that such a deprivation 
could not bring them harm in the life to come ; and if the 
hope of eternal life suffered no diminution from a deprivation 
of services, often unjust, why should it suffer from voluntary 
cessation? By these logical steps many a layman undoubtedly 
was brought to reason that the mediation of priests was not 
essential to salvation; and thus the interdict, that weapon 
which served to establish the church in its struggle against 
external and temporal powers, contributed to the weakening 
of her inner and spiritual control. 

Of the general effects of interdict perhaps no more inter- 
esting description can be given than in the phrases used by a 
few of the chroniclers. The Chronicle of St. Amand com- 
pares the interdict to the Babylonian Captivity. ^^^ Stephen 
of Tournay relates that altars were contaminated, cemeteries 
profaned, and the sacraments of the Lord publicly sold.^^^ At 
another place ^^^ he says : * ^ As yet the recent wounds of the 
former interdict still flow \_spirant'\ ; nor do the wounded 
breathe \respirant~\. And if a second blow comes redoubled, 
death will be within the gates ; and in the sad silence those 
heresies which are already beginning to put forth sprouts will 
grow strong ; spiritual melodies will be unheard, and those 
who have been accustomed to eat \_manducare\ the bread of 
life at the table of the Lord will be compelled to beg \_mendt- 
care'],'^ The interdict on Leon provoked several Spanish 
prelates to exert themselves in behalf of their kingdom ; they 

I2C0, ac tot illo seculo viguernnt. Qui omnium illorum annorum historias 
leget lacrymas contineri non potuerit tantamspirilualem stragem legentem." 

i28Chron. S. Amandi, in Rec.^ XVIII, 592. *' . . . transmigrationem 
Babylonis repraesentare videtur". 

^29 Steph. Tornac, Epp., 246, in Migne, Fat. Lat., 211, col. 513. 
** Contaminantur altaria, profanantur coemeteria, prostituuntur in tributis 
Dominica sacramenta. " 

'^^^ Ibid.^ 22,1 i in ibid,, col. 501. 



74 



THE INTERDICT 



asserted that from the interdict a three-fold danger from 
heretics, Saracens, and Christians threatened the kingdom. 
** From heretics, because in pursuance of the interdict the lips 
of pastors were closed in those parts and the faithful could not 
be instructed by them against the heretics, or in any way 
taught to resist them ; so that, both from this cause and also 
because the King of Leon, averring that he was hindered by 
the interdict, did not oppose them, the heretics prevailed 
against the faithful and various heresies were now spreading in 
the kingdom. From the Saracens, for, inasmuch as the 
people of Spain had customarily been induced to attack the 
pagans by the exhortations and remissions of the church, the 
devotion of the people grew lukewarm when the office of 
preaching ceased; for, as long as the people saw themselves 
interdicted, being subjected to the same penalty as their 
prince on account of a fault to which they had consented, 
though merely by keeping silent, they probably did not regard 
themselves faultless and for this reason they were less ardent 
to war against the Saracens, fearing they might die in sin. 
From the Catholics, for, as clerics could not minister to the 
spiritual needs of the laity, laymen denied the temporal ne- 
cessities to the clergy, retaining oblations, first-fruits, and 
tithes. Now, as the clergy in those parts were largely de- 
pendent on these, they being withdrawn, clerks were forced 
not only to beg, but to serve and toil for the Jews, to the 
opprobrium of the church and all Christendom." ^^^ 

From a later time^^^ comes another equally interesting 
account of what effect it was hoped the interdict would have. 
At Rome, says Sarpi, it was expected to have three notable 
effects. ** I. That the Religious would all depart the Countrey 
and so the interdict at least by necessitie should be observed ; 
2. That Cities and people seeing themselves deprived of Divine 
Offices and Exercises would seditiously be moved and send to 
the Prince to give satisfaction to his Holinesse ; 3. That upon 
this occasion the Nobilitie might be disordered, grieved, and 
terrified, and so divided amongst themselves." 

151 Gesta, c. 58. ^^^ Sarpi, Quarrels of Paul F, p. 100. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Moderation and Relaxation of the Interdict. 

To complete our discussion of the interdict it is necessary 
to present the means by which the severity of the sentence 
could be tempered to any desired degree, and be made to fit 
any conditions. This was done by privileges, and by mitiga- 
tions such as partial^ and ambulatory interdicts. Privileges 
were freely used to blunt the edge of the interdict ; by grant- 
ing them the church sought in part to still the accusation of 
injustice raised against her for afflicting the innocent with the 
guilty. The first known privilege was given the monastery of 
Fleury (Orleans) in 997.^ During the eleventh century 
privileges became estabhshed in principle ; during the twelfth 
they became numerous. They w^ere given usually by papal, 
and rarely by episcopal authority.^ They were always strictly 
construed and were held to confer no rights not distinctly and 
explicitly granted;^ thus tertiaries or ^^conversi" were not 
included in the benefits of a privilege given an order. ^ Fur- 
thermore, they were revocable at any time by the authority 

^ Partial interdicts are those which prohibit only a part of the services 
usually denied. Their use was not common. 

^Aimoin, Vita S. Abbonis, c. 12, in Rec,^ X, 335. Cf. Hinschius, V, 
20, n. I. Kober states that this is the earhest privilege known. 

^ (a) Miraeus, 0pp. DipL^ I, 97. Privilege by the Bishop of Cambrai 
to the church " Grimbergana ". " Concedo etiam ut si inbannitur terra 
remotis excommunicatis haec cantet Ecclesia, clausis januis.'* (b) Anti- 
quus Cartul. Eccl. Baiocensis, No. 47, in Mem, Soc. Aniiq. Norm., VIII 
(1834), ii, 443-445. The Bishop of Beauvais grants a privilege to those 
who shall contribute to the fund for the repair of the cathedral: *' propter 
nullam interdicti sententiam nisi nominatim excommunicati fuerint ecclesi- 
asticis priventur sacramentis. " 

* Kober, XXI, 338-340. 

^C. 3. de sent, excom. in Clement. 5. 10. 

(75) 



76 THE INTERDICT 

which granted them, and so it came to pass that Innocent III, 
in his endeavor to make his interdicts on England and on 
France of the utmost severity, allowed no privileges to prevent 
the observance of the sentence.^ 

Privileges were of two general classes : First, they forbade 
judges to lay interdicts on designated persons or localities."^ 
Second, they conferred exemption from all interdicts upon 
persons,^ such as princes^ or prelates ;^^ upon localities, such 
as royal and noble chapels,^'' churches,'^ hospitals ,^^ districts 
and countries ; ^^ and upon corporations , such as military^^ and 
religious orders. ^^ Privileges granted to persons varied in 
their character. William, Lord of Montpellier, received per- 
mission to have silent services in his chapel in time of inter- 
dict, unless he himself should chance to be excommunicated.^^ 
**G. de Blosaville," his wife, and his mother were to hear 
services behind closed doors. ^^ Baldwin, Emperor of Con- 
stantinople,^® Simon de Montfort and his wife,^^ and the 

« (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., XII, 9 (Potth., 3686). (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 
121 (Potth., 3175). (c) Inn. 0pp., IV, 190, No. 136. (d) Migne, /^«/. 
Lat.^ 2.idf^ col. xcvii, n. 60. (e) Raynald., Annal.^ 1238, XLVIII. 

"^ The nature of those privileges which forbade the promulgation of inter- 
dict upon some person or locality is clear without further explanation. 

® Kober maintains that privilege does not exempt from episcopal inter- 
dict. 

^ (a) J-L., 5552, 9860. (b) Potth., 1452, 1540, 1689, 1883, 2203, 
3174, 4135a, 4485? 4842, 49ii> 5H3> 52131 5269. 

10(a) J-L., 12446. (b) Potth., 328, 1527, 3604. 

1^ Potth., 2203, 4842, 491 1. 

^2 (a) Potth., 5449. (b) Quell. Gesch. Stadt K'dln, II, 263. A privi- 
lege is given to the superintendent of the leper-hospital at Cologne. 

13(a) J-L., 16173 (10053). (b) Potth., 5924, 10402, 10463, 11023. 
(c) Auvray, Reg., 3334. 

1* (a) J-L., 13745 (8833;, Hospitallers; ibid., 17446, Templars, (b) 
Archives Nat., L. 236. Cited from Davidsohn, Philip II und Ingeborg, 
loi. Templars. 

1^ Henriquez, Regula Const, et Privil. ordin. Cisterc, Privileg. VII, 
VIII, XI, LXXI. 

1® Potth., 1450, 1451, 1452. 

iM-L.,9860. 

1** Potth., 5143. 

1^ Potth., 5213. 



MODERA TION AND RE LAX A TION yy 

Bishops of Cremona and Pampluna ^^ had similar privileges. 
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, and the 
Bishops of London, Ely, and Worcester were allowed to cele- 
brate services in spite of the interdict on England, if for any 
reason they should chance to cross to the island. ^^ Religious 
orders were the principal recipients of the privileges granted 
to corporations. A typical privilege of this class is to this 
effect : the recipients, in time of interdict, had the right to 
celebrate offices behind closed doors, with subdued voice and 
without the ringing of bells, those interdicted and excom- 
municated nominatim being excluded ; and to give canonical 
burial to those of their number who died in good standing. ^^ 
Exceptional privileges were those by which monks were al- 
lowed to ring a single bell for a short time in case of the burial 
of one of their number ; ^•' or those by which they were per- 
mitted to call the brethren from their labors to the church by 
ringing one bell, provided their monastery was so separated 
from villages and cities that the sound of this bell could not 
be heard. ^* The Praemonstratensians were privileged to cele- 
brate divine offices solemnly, if their churches were removed 
from habitations, on condition that the excommunicated and 
interdicted be kept so far away that they could not hear ; in 
churches near human dwellings they were to observe the hmi- 
tations set by the typical privilege. ^^ Peculiar privileges 
are the following : the Council of Laval permitted the canons 
to recite canonical hours ,^^ and Boniface IX permitted 
the council of Cologne to hear mass behind closed doors on 

20(a) Potth., 1527. (b) Potth., 328. 
2iPotth., 3604. 

22 (a) Cartul. de I'Abbaye du Paraclet, in Coll. des Princip. Cartul. du 
Dioc. de Troyes, 34, No. 21. (b) Cartul. de I'Abbaye de S. Loup, ibid,, 
No. 134. (c) Potth., 4984. (d) J-L., 135145 14601 (9460)? 14704. 
16172. 

23 Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 23 (Potth., 1862). 
2^ Inn. Ill, Epp., V, 2. 

25 Potth., 1247. 

26 Cone, apud Vallem Guidonis, 1242, c. 6, in Hard., VII, 349. 



78 THE INTERDICT 

days of council session.^' The Archbishop of Cologne, in his 
eagerness to increase the funds for building the cathedral, 
gave the following privilege : ^ ' We order that, if any churches 
shall have been put under interdict by us, or the archdeacons, 
or the deans, whenever on Sundays or feast-days it shall seem 
that the aforesaid matter [the building of the cathedral] can 
be advanced, holy offices shall be celebrated, persons excom- 
municated and interdicted nominatim being excluded; and, 
because of the evident need of the said work, the word of ex- 
hortation shall be preached to the people." ^^ 

A privilege frequently granted was the right to bury the 
dead. This was doubtless valuable because of burial fees and 
payments, which, if desirable in ordinary times, must in time 
of interdict have been especially remunerative to those privi- 
leged to bestow the dead. Sometimes persons secured the 
right of burial for themselves ,^^ but this was less common than 
the privileges of monasteries to bury whoever might come.^^ 
La Charite claimed this privilege,^^ St. Bartholomew's Hos- 
pital in London had the right to bury its dead,^^ and the 
Templars could bury any but excommunicated and interdicted 
persons,^^ which was the common limitation of the privilege. 

A very decided moderation of the interdict resulted from 
the ambulatorium ^ which began to be used about the middle 
of the twelfth century. This interdict was designed to ac- 
complish just as much as the local general interdict without 
many of its evil effects. Intrinsically it is the local interdict 

2^ Chapters, (a) J-L., 16854 (10368), 16998 (10426), 17159, 17413, 
17544. (b) J-L., 16708. Benefactors of the Holy Sepulchre, (c) 
Quell. Gesch. Siadt Koluy VI, 7. City Council of Cologne. 

'^^ Ibid,, II, 502-504. 

29 J-L., 16708. 

»oj-L., 13963. 

31 Gall, Christ, XII, Instrumenta, col. 174. '* . . . monachi dicunt 
quod habent privilegia a sede apostolica, quod durantibus interdictis 
possunt admittere in suis cimiteriis ad jus ecclesiasticae sepulturae omnes" 
[except excom. or those responsible for the interdict]. 

^2 See above, chap. Ill, n. 67. 

^3 (a) J-L., 16742. (b) J-L., 15820 (9904). Usurers are excepted. 



MODERA TION AND RELAXA TION yg 

in motion ; except for its ambulatory character it offers noth- 
ing new, and whatever has been said of the theory, causes, 
and effects of the local interdict applies also to the ambula- 
tory interdict. Instead of putting the whole of a prince's 
dominions under sentence , only that part suffered in which he 
chanced to be ; the remainder in the meantime celebrated all 
services in the usual way. The ambulatory interdict wandered 
about with the offender as did his own shadow. He was 
never out of interdicted territory, or beyond the reach of 
public sentiment. The populace, instead of rejoicing at his 
approach, must have rejoiced at his departure. Bishop 
Stephen of Tournay, in writing to the Archbishop of Reims 
regarding a local interdict threatened against the Count of 
Flanders, said that it seemed to him and to many other 
prudent persons that the Count would both be wounded more 
deeply, and disconcerted more openly, if he and his adherents 
were every Sunday declared excommunicate, and if all places 
to which he came ceased from divine services as long as he re- 
mained there. ^* The size of the district affected by an ambu- 
latorium varied ; it might be a diocese ,^^ a province/^^ a city,^^ 
a village ,^^ a town,^® or a parish j ^^ often no limits were speci- 
fied, and it was merely stated that all places to which the 
offenders came should cease from services. "^^ The ambulatory 
interdict was particularly serviceable when the offender himself 
was migratory, and therefore the presence of such offenders as 

^* Steph. To mac, Epp., 231, in Migne, Pat. Lat,^ 211, col. 501. 

sspotth., 27, 29, 2344. 

^^J-L., 12248, 12705. 

^'^ (a) Gesta, c. 58. " . . .ad quamcumque civitatem, villam, vel 
oppidum devenirent nullus ibidem eis praesentibus divina officia celebraret." 
(b) Marlot, Hist, de Reims, III, 783. The chapter of Reims agrees to 
suspend services if a certain Enguerraud is present. 

^^ See above, chap. II, n. 116. 

3^Prov. Cone. Trev., 1238, c. 2, in Mansi, XXIII, 479. *« . . . per 
totam illam parochiam . . . .'* 

*o(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., V, 155 (Potth., 1813). (b) Ibid., VIII, 84 
(Potth., 2530). ** . . .in omnibus . . . locis . . . ." (c) Ibid.^ XI, 
26 (Potth., 3324). "... omnia loca ....'* 



8o THE INTERDICT 

kings or nobles/^ murderers of prelates/^ marauders of 
churches ,^^ crusaders who refused to keep their vows ,^* and 
persons who attended tournaments in spite of ecclesiastical 
prohibitions^ commonly caused its use. That this ambu- 
latorium was considered an amelioration of the severity of the 
interdict appears from the fact that Innocent III, in conse- 
quence of a complaint of the Spanish prelates about the griev- 
ous results of the general interdict, partly relaxed it by mak- 
ing it ambulatory.*® The ecclesiastics of Auxerre found it ex- 
pedient to do the same thing during the quarrel of their bishop 
with Peter Courtenay.*^ The interdict on Denmark, after 
having been generally unobserved for two years, was finally 
changed to an interdict solely on those parts in which the 
queen and her accomplices were.*^ 

A few cases of ambulatory interdict arose out of the deten- 
tion of some person or property in a locality : Henry II of 
England v/as notified that, unless he yielded the daughters of 
Louis within forty days, the province in which they were de- 
tained would be interdicted.*^ The Archbishop of Cologne 
ordered that, if any ecclesiastical person were detained in a 
place for more than three days, the locality should fall under 
interdict. ^^ The captivity of Queen Sybil and other Sicilians 
caused interdict to be threatened for all dioceses in which 
they were held prisoners. ^^ The Cistercians obtained papal 

« (a) Ibid., VI, 63 (Potth., 1911). (b) Ibid., VII, 171 (Potth., 2344). 
(c) Ibid., VIII, 84 (Potth., 2530). (d) Potth., 8162, 10811. (e) Auctor 
Anon, ad an. 1261, in Ludewig, IX, 81-82. 

*2Inn. Ill, Epp., V, 155; XI, 26 (Potth., 1813, 3324). 

*^ (a) J-L. , 15247. (b) Cartul. de la Chapelle-aux-Planches, No. 41. 

^ (a) Potth., 8162. (b) Gesta, c. 84. '^ . . . et quocunqne tales 
[crusaders] devenerint, divina prohibeatis eis praesentibus officia celebrare." 

^^ Gesta, c. 84. Cf. Inn. Ill, Epp., IX, 197; X, 74 (Potth., 2927. 
3127). 

46 Gesta, c. 58. 

^"^ See Appendix, case 88. Interdict on Auxerre. 

*^ Auctor Anon., in Ludewig, IX, 81-82. 

49J-L., 12248, 12705. 

50 Quell. Gesch. Stadt IColn, II, 273. 

"Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 26 (Potth., 27). 



MODE R A TION AND RELAX A TION g I 

protection for themselves and their property with this addi- 
tion : that villas in which any of their goods or men were forci- 
bly kept, or in which brethren, fugitive monks, or '^ conversi '* 
were detained contrary to their own will, or in which the 
looters of their property remained, should be interdicted until 
the cause for grievance was removed, unless the inhabitants 
upon notice expelled the offenders. ^^ The provincial Council 
of Trier determined that a parish should be interdicted as long 
as any stolen goods, the thieves , or the purchaser of the goods 
remained there. ^^ The presence of stolen goods alone was 
cause for an interdict, it appears from a privilege to the Abbey 
of Basse- Fontaine.^^ The struggle between the Bishop of 
Auxerre and the Count of Nevers gives a very adequate idea 
of the way in which an ambulatory interdict operated. It was 
there decided to observe the interdict in this way : as soon as 
the count's arrival was known, and as long as he was present, 
churches were closed and services were celebrated in the 
silence demanded by the interdict ; when his departure was 
announced by the bell of the public crier, services were re- 
sumed. *' Certainly a profitable and salubrious agreement, 
for the Count could not enter or leave his own city without the 
greatest commotion, nor could he stay very long because of 
the clamor of the populace ; and the church by her silence was 
not obliged to neglect the building and the progress of souls." ^^ 
An interdict ended with its relaxation. This was under 
some circumstances automatic,^^ but usually there was a judicial 
absolution. If this absolution was reserved to some one, that 
authority alone could relax the sentence ; as a special privi- 
lege to the Bishop of Oviedo, Innocent III reserved to him 

^^ See above, chap. II, n. ii6. 

53 Prov. Cone. Trev., 1238, c. 2, in Mansi, XXIII, 479. 

^^Cartnl. de I'Abbayede Basse-Fontaine, 142, No. 106. *^ Villas autem 
in quibus bona praedictorum fratrum per violentiam detenta fuerint quandiu 
ibi sint interdicti sententiae supponatis. " 

55 See Appendix, case 88. Interdict on Auxerre. 

56 Kober, XXII, 42!. 



82 THE INTERDICT 

the right of raising the interdict in his own diocese, though 
the papal commissioners removed it from the other parts of 
Leon.^^ As a rule, only the person who laid the interdict, his 
vicar, his successor, or his superior ^^ could remove it. Who 
was properly a higher authority was open to some question : 
Anacletus II, anti-pope, removed a personal interdict laid by 
Honorius 11,^^ and the anti-pope Victor IV gave Albert, 
Bishop of Verdun, the right of relaxing an interdict in the 
church of Saint Michel ( Verdun). ^^ According to law a 
sentence must actually have accomplished the purpose for 
which it was laid before it could be removed ;^^ usage, how- 
ever, demonstrates that the working of this law was not always 
in keeping with the theory. If possible, the interdict was left 
in force until it accomplished its original purpose ; but it was 
not always possible to secure the desired effects, and under 
such circumstances there was no option but to take as little 
less as could be obtained. This was notably the case in 
Venice. The city refused absolutely to observe the interdict 
or to yield in the slightest degree ; the papacy had exhausted 
all possible devices to secure its aims ; for the Roman pontiff 
the matter resolved itself into getting out of the situation with 
all possible grace. He sought to induce Venice to do some- 
thing which would afford him a pretext for relaxing the sen- 
tence ; but the Venetians would not so much as pray him, 
directly or indirectly, to give up his hostility ; they refused to 
observe the interdict merely as a form for even a few days ; 
and when peace was arranged they refused an absolution. 
The mediating cardinal desired to celebrate mass and give the 

s^nn. Ill, Epp., I, 125 (Potth., 131). 

^^ (a) J-L., 5959. (b) Potth., 10020. (c) Hist. Episc. Autiss., c. 59, 
in Labbe, Nova Bibl., I, 481. 

59 J-L., 8371 (5924). 

6OJ-L., 14431 (9378). 

^^ (a) Cone. Galteri Archiep. Senon., c. 14, in Hard., VI, 560. (b) 
Cone. Lemovieen., Sess. II, in Hard., VI, 56of. (e) Ivo Carnot. , Epp., 
94. (d) Gesta, e. 53, 54. (e) Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 14. (f) Inn. Ill, 
Epp., XIII, 43. (g) See A.ppendix, ease 45, 



MODERA TION AND RELAX A TION 83 

benediction, but it was not agreeable to the Republic; the 
citizens, since they maintained that the interdict was never 
actually laid, would not hear of anything that even suggested 
absolution. The cardinal announced the end of the interdict 
in the following words : * * I re Joyce very much that this happy 
day so much desired by me is come, wherein I declare unto 
your Serenitie that all the Censures are taken away, as indeed 
they are ; and I take therein much pleasure , for the benefit 
which shall redound hereby to all Christendome and particu- 
larly to Italy." On the day the pope revoked his sentence, a 
rumor spread that the cardinal had given absolution at a mass ; 
this caused great discontent among the people, who were 
zealous that nothing should be done to cast aspersion on their 
cause; the rumor, however, was false. Many had supposed 
that on this occasion there would be bonfires and other signs 
of joy, at the least the ringing of bells. ^' Notwithstanding, 
nothing of this was done, nor one bell sounded neither at 
Venice nor in any Citie of the State when the News arrived 
... to the end that such signes of joy might not be inter- 
preted to signifie some absolution which they had received ,^^ 
or the Republique thereby conceived to have been formerly in 
a fault." The pope drew off entirely beaten, not even able 
to save appearances. 

But the experience was unique, and usually the church was 
able to make conditions for the relaxation. ^^ The particulars 
of these conditions varied with circumstances ; among the 
common stipulations were, first, the promise to make repara- 
tion for all harm done the church during the time in which 
the sentence was operative ; ^* second, to give security that the 
terms would be fulfilled ;^^ and third, that the offender obey 

^2 Sarpi, Quarrels of Paul V, 414-417, 424-425, 427-428. 

63 Mun. Acad. Oxon. {R. Ser.), igof. 

6* See above, chap. Ill, n. 119. 

6^ (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 35 (Potth., 31). *' . < . cautione recepta 
. . ." (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 461 (PoUh., 473). (c) Potth., 3421. 
(d) Inn. Ill, Epp., XII, 156 (Potth., 3885). (e) Ibid,, XV, 12 
(Potth., 4406). (f) Ibid,, XVI, 98 (Potth., 4798). 



84 THE INTERDICT 

the authorities in regard to the matters under dispute. ^^ Not 
infrequently it was stipulated that certain of the conditions of 
peace be actually fulfilled before the interdict was relaxed. ^'^ 
The pope commanded his agents to see that everything expedi- 
ent was done before the sentence was removed ,^^ which was 
nothing more than the good business principle of giving no 
receipt before having value received. Not always, however, 
was it easy to come to terms, or to have all the conditions 
clearly stated, much less fulfilled ; under such circumstances a 
part of the terms of peace were left to be determined after re- 
laxation.^^ In England, the fact that some of the details of 
the peace were not understood did not defer the removal of 
the interdict. "^^ No definite form of absolution seems to have 
developed ; each formula of relaxation was drawn to fit its spe- 
cial case. Even less can be said of the ceremonies of relaxation. 
At the removal of the interdict and excommunication from 
Roger, Count of Pamiers, the count on his knees, before the 
Bishop of Pamiers, prayed with joined hands for absolution, 
which was accorded. ^^ Relaxations of interdicts bring out 
several matters of value : the joy displayed by the people on 
such occasions indicates that the interdict was oppressive ; ^^ 
a special aid was levied for its removal in England ; ^^ the re- 
laxation of interdict was so much desired that letters of re- 



^^ (a) T-L., 9169 (6373). Eugene III reproved the Bishop of Verona for 
removing an interdict without first having secured the restoration of the 
canons' property, and ordered him to secure the restoration. (b) Inn. 
Ill, Epp. , III, 16 (Potth., 1 150). Innocent reproved Octavian for dis- 
regarding his instructions, " . in qua . continetur, quod prae- 
missis omnibus quae ante relaxandam sententiam interdicti mandavimus 
praemittenda, post modum ipsam sententiam relaxares." 

67 Potth., 3881. 

68 Inn. Ill, Epp., XV, 108 (Potth., 4531). 

69 73^-^., XV, 234 (Potth., 4393). 

"^^ Hist, Gen. de LanguedoCy IX, 190-192, n. 

■^^ (a) Hist. Guerre des Albig., c. 17, in Rec, XIX, 131. '* Et adonc 
s'6s levada dins ladita villa una tala joya et alegretat, que jamay tala non 
fouc vista." (b) Matt. Par., Hist. Angl. ad an. 1213, in Rec, XVII, 714. 

^'^ Rot. Claus., 208, 213. 

"Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 52 (Potth., 4732). 



MOVER A TION AND RELAX A TION 85 

moval were forged. In Portugal a relaxation was stopped by 
the king's opponents on the plea that the exhibited papal 
letters of absolution were fraudulent.^* That the papal com- 
missioners were induced by this assertion to postpone action 
until they could investigate seems to give ground for crediting 
the accusation. In the preceding year, also, the pope had 
instituted an inquiry about certain forged letters granting 
papal absolution to Stephen, Count of Burgundy, from an ex- 
communication and interdict laid by the Archbishop of Be- 
sangon.'^* Before dismissing the subject, let it be noted that 
the abuse of relaxations, exemplified by the clergy of Reims 
in demanding a sum of money before removing the interdict, 
was opposed by the papacy, and that Innocent IV in this in- 
stance administered a strong rebuke. ^^ On the whole, the im- 
pression given by the silence of the sources is that the misuse 
of relaxation was not common. 

^^nn. Ill, Epp., XV, 11 (Potth., 4408). 

^^ Arch, de Reims ^ 11, i, 659. Cf. Raumer, Gesch, d. Hohenst.^ VI, 162. 



APPENDIX. 

Interdicts from 1198 to 1216. 

The author realizes that any arrangement of eighty-five 
miscellaneous cases of interdict is likely to be bad. A 
strictly chronological list separates interdicts that are closely 
related in cause if not in time ; a chronological arrangement 
by countries has not even the virtues of a consecutive list ; a 
topical arrangement is not feasible because of the number of 
unconnected topics. The plan that seemed open to fewest 
objections is to arrange all manifestations of the interdict from 
the year 1198 to the year 12 16 in three groups: threats of 
interdict, possible cases, and actual cases of interdict. Within 
each group the order is a combination of chronological and 
topical arrangement. Whenever the sources furnished suffi- 
ciently interesting material, the case was narrated. 

threats. 

1 Hungary^ iig8} 

2 Portugal and Castile^ iigS? 

3 Leon and Castile^ iigS.^ 

4 Leon, 1212} 

5 Cyprus, February, 1200.^ 

6 Violators of crusaders' vows, 1201, Anibtclatory,^ 

7 Ltalian Cities, June, iigS, 

At a convention of Italian bishops held at Verona, under 

linn. Ill, Epp., I, 271 (Potth., 285). 

2 Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 249 (Potth., 263). 

^ Ibid., 92 (Potth., 81). 

* Ibid., Epp., XV, 15 (Potth., 4417). 

^Theiner, Vet, Mon, Slav. Merid., I, 47, No. 5 (Potth., 956). 

6 Hoveden, Chron. {R. Ser.), IV, 165. 

(86) 



APPENDIX 87 

the chairmanship of the legate Gregory, it was decreed that 
heretics should not be allowed to hold offices or vote for city 
officials, and that all podestas, consuls, and councils were to 
take oath to enforce this rule. The convention instructed the 
Archdeacon of Milan, who was sent to administer the oath to 
the cities, to use excommunication and interdict against the 
lands of any who refused to swear. Innocent confirmed these 
instructions."^ 

8 Brindisi, Gallipoli ^ Otranto^ Bari, 120J. 

There is probably no better example of the use of threat of 
interdict for political purposes, than the one which follows. 
In the course of the struggle between the papacy and the 
Hohenstauffen in southern Italy, Innocent found himself com- 
pelled to call in French aid in the person of Walter of Brienne. 
From the first Count Walter found adherents, but in the 
vicissitudes of the struggle Brindisi, Gallipoli, and Otranto 
rebelled against him and occupied one of his castles, thereby 
causing some loss of life. About October, 1203, orders came 
from the curia to the prelates and people of these cities com- 
manding them under pain of interdict to return to their 
allegiance within a month. These orders were apparently not 
effective ; for in December of the same year the cities above 
mentioned, with the addition of Bari, were threatened with 
interdict unless they returned to their allegiance within a 
month. There is no further trace of this interdict.^ 

9 Orvieto ^ July ^ I20g. 

The citizens of Orvieto were guilty of numerous offences ; 
the one which made their insolence no longer tolerable was 
the seizure of some of the cattle of Aquapendente. Innocent 
gave them fifteen days within which to return the stolen cattle ; 
if they failed to do so, their officials were to be excommunicated 
and the city put under interdict.^ 

Hnn. Ill, Epp., I, 298 (Potth., 286). 

^Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 191, 192 (Potth., 2064, 2065). 

^Ibid,, XII, 80 (Potth., 3777). 



88 THE INTERDICT 

10 Bologna^ June, 1211}^ 

11 Lands of Philip in Rouen, iigS, 

About 1 198 the Archbishop of Rouen and the King of 
France disagreed regarding the cession of Andelay to Richard 
of England. The king appealed to Rome to prevent any 
action prejudicial to him from being taken. In spite of this 
the archbishop disturbed him and threatened to subject what- 
ever lands he possessed in the diocese of Rouen to interdict. 
The pope forbade the archbishop to molest the king there- 
after, or to presume to lay an interdict on his lands ; and 
certain abbots were instructed to see that any sentence laid by 
the archbishop contrary to law was declared null, and to arbi- 
trate the matter fairly, without respect of persons. ^-^ 

12 Lands of the Count of Nevers , iigg. 

Baldwin, Count of Flanders, and the Count of Nevers had 
made an agreement under oath in regard to certain marriages. 
A part of the agreement was that, if either of the parties failed 
or refused to carry out his part of the contract, he was to be 
forced to do so by the King of France, by the Archbishops of 
Reims and Sens, or by the Bishops of Auxerre and Nevers, by 
means of excommunication of person and interdict of lands. 
Peter, Count of Nevers, failed to perform his part of the 
agreement. The pope instructed the above-mentioned pre- 
lates to force Peter to keep his oath. The count was notified 
of the order, and at the same time a bull requested the King 
of France not to hinder the count from keeping his oath. 
There is no evidence that a sentence was issued. ^^ 

13 England and France , iigS, 

The ardent desire of Innocent to organize a crusade was 
balked by the endless wars between England and France. 

"^^Ibid,, XIV, 79 (Pouh., 4264). 

11 (a) Wendover, Plor. Hist, ad an. 1197 {R. Ser., I, 267). (b) Inn. 
Ill, Epp. I, 108 (Potth., 107). (c) Ibid., I, 131 (Polth., 141). 

12(a) Rec, XIX, 375 (Potth., 674). (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., II, 44 
(Potth., 675). 



APPENDIX 



89 



For this reason, on August 13, 3198, he addressed letters to 
the kings of these two countries, in which he ordered them to 
make peace, or at least a truce for five years, within two 
months after receiving his letters, and to keep inviolate the 
agreement they should make. Peter of Capua was sent to 
promote these matters. If, upon warning of the legate, they 
failed humbly to receive and fulfill the papal mandate within 
the time fixed, their entire lands were to be placed under in- 
terdict, so severe that no divine office except baptism of in- 
fants and penance of the dying could be celebrated. All 
prelates of both realms were warned to observe the interdict, 
should it be issued ; even the Templars and the Hospitalers 
were to be affected. It was further ordained that, if any cleric 
whatsoever dared to perform any ministration for the kings 
after the interdict was laid, he risked the loss of his orders and 
his benefice. The agreement demanded by the pope was 
made. Coggeshall states that the kings did not make a peace, 
but entered into a five-year truce about the time of Lent 
(1 199). This record is confirmed by another which reports 
that a verbal truce to hold for five years was entered into in 
1 199, but was hardly kept until Easter. V/endover relates 
that the kings met and swore to keep truce for five years. 
Philip, however, soon plotted with John against Richard, 
thereby violating the spirit of the truce, and war was con- 
tinued. But there is no evidence that the sentence threat- 
ened for the violation of the truce was ever issued.^^ 
14 England^ iigS, 

Richard was threatened with interdict if, upon seeing the 

13(a) Wendover, Flor. Hist, ad an. 1198 {R. Ser.^,\, 2%o\. States 
that the pope took this action at Phihp's request, (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 
355 (Potth., 351), and ibid., II, 57 (Potth., 682). (c) Rad. Coggesh., in 
Rec,^ XVIII, 84. (d) Sigeb. , Contin. Acquic, ad an. 1 199, in MGSS., 
VI, 435. (e) See also Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 163. (f) The threat of inter- 
dict (1203) mentioned by Luchaire, Les Royauies Vassales du S.- Siege ^ p. 
189, as a local interdict seems to me to have been a personal interdict : '* Si 
quis autem contrarium praesumpserit excom. se noverit sent, innodatum et 
totam familiam suam suppositam interdicto. " Inn., Epp. , VI, 164 (Potth., 
2010). 



go THE INTERDICT 

letters of the pope, he failed to remove the Archbishop, 
Hubert Walter, from the justiciarship.^* 

15 York and England, iigg- 

The disputes of Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, with his 
brothers, Richard and John, were the cause of two threats of 
interdict; one in 11 99, the other in 1207. Inii96 Richard 
had disseized Geoffrey of his ecclesiastical estates and temporal 
functions. In spite of the prelate's efforts, and of the papal 
warnings, the king did not restore the properties. With the 
accession of the new pontiff, Innocent, Geoffrey's cause was 
strengthened. On April 28, 1199, the pope ordered Richard 
to restore the properties of the archbishop on pain of interdict 
upon the province of York, which would be followed by an 
interdict on all England, if the sentence on York did not 
bring him to submission. Before the bull reached its destina- 
tion Richard died, and John soon after came to an agreement 
with Geoffrey.^^ 

16 Yo7^ky 1207. 

When John, in 1207, proposed to levy a tax of a thirteenth 
on all chattels of the realm, his obstreperous brother, Geoffrey, 
headed the opposition. He forbade his clergy to pay the 
tax, declared all collectors excommunicated, and secretly left 
for the continent. His property was seized by the king. 
The pope vigorously interfered in Geoffrey's behalf. In De- 
cember, 1207, he wrote to the Bishops of Worcester, Ely, and 
Hereford, instructing them to urge the king to repair the 
harm done the archbishop; and, to give point to their en- 
treaties, the pope permitted them to use interdict against the 
province of York, if the king proved obstinate. These com- 
missioners did nothing; for early in the following year the 
quarrel over the archbishopric of Canterbury came to a head 
and an interdict was laid on the whole of England. But 

i*(a) Wendover, Flor. Hist., {R. Ser.), I, 276 (Potth., 552). (b) 
Diet. NatL Biog., " Hubert Walter." 

^^(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., II, 57, 59 (Potth., 682, 683). (b) Stubbs, 
Preface to Hoveden [JR. Ser,), IV, Ixix-kxv. 



APPENDIX 



91 



Innocent did not merge the affairs of York with those of Eng- 
land. In May, 1208, a bull was issued from Rome addressed 
to the Bishops of London and Rochester and to the Dean of 
Lincoln, informing them of the situation in York, of the in- 
structions previously given, and commissioning them to per- 
suade the king to yield within three months. Should John 
refuse to do so, the bishops were to lay an interdict on the 
province of York and were to enforce its observance until 
satisfaction was forthcoming. Nothing came of this interdict 
because all the bishops except the Bishop of Winchester were 
obliged to leave England on account of the great interdict. 
Geoffrey never returned to England ; he died in Normandy 
in 1212.^^ 
17 Normandy^ 1203, 

King John retained some of the property of the bishopric of 
Seez and refused to acknowledge Silvester as the Bishop of 
S^ez, because he had been consecrated by the Archbishop of 
Sens, when the right of consecration belonged to the Arch- 
bishop of Rouen. On May 25 the pope ordered the king to 
receive the bishop and restore his properties within a month, 
under pain of interdict on that part of Normandy subject to 
the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Rouen ; this interdict 
was to be observed until the king came to terms. John had 
not submitted in December of 1203, for at that time he 
remonstrated with the Archbishop of Sens for presuming to 
consecrate Silvester, and stated that he had appealed to the 
pope and put himself and his lands under papal protection, 
and that the archbishop should therefore ordain nothing 
against him or his realm. This shows that the sentence had 
not been laid, and no doubt John accepted Innocent's de- 
cision in the matter, for Silvester became Bishop of Seez.^' 

^6 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 87 (Potth., 3418), etc. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., 
X, 172 (Potth., 3248J. (c) Wendover, Flor. Hist, ad an. 1207 (i?. 
Ser,), II, 35. 

i'^(a) Rot, Pat.^ I, 16, August 12. (b) Raynald., Anna!., 1203, Ixi. 
(c) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 73 (Potth., 1919). (d) Pot, Pat., I, 22b, De- 
cember 19. 



92 



THE INTERDICT 



1 8 Dublin^ I20J-I20S. 

In 1 197, the Archbishop of Dublin was exiled and his 
property was confiscated by the crown. The pope urged and 
pleaded in vain. In 1203, he proceeded to more rigorous 
measures ; he commanded the king to recall the prelate and 
restore his property ; and he instructed the Archbishop of 
Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely that, if John failed to obey 
within a month after receiving the papal order, they should 
interdict whatever diocese the king chanced to enter, as long 
as he tarried therein. The pontiff assured the king that, if 
these measures did not soften the regal will, he should adopt 
severer measures. The prelates disregarded their orders and 
nothing came of the threat, except that the English prelates 
were roundly rated for their disobedience. A year and a half 
later John again received a communication from Rome, and 
this time he was given two months for reflection ; if his medi- 
tations meanwhile had not brought him to give satisfaction to 
the Archbishop of Dublin, an ambulatory interdict was to 
make John's itinerary frcm diocese to diocese its own; if this 
proved inadequate, the whole province of Dublin was to be 
interdicted. The pope added that he should remain firm in 
the defense of the church. In 1205 the king and the arch- 
bishop came to an agreement, and thus ended the necessity for 
the interdict. ^^ 

19 Farts of Germany^ iigS. 

During the pontificate of Celestin III various Sicilians had 
been carried as captives across the Alps to German lands ; 
among these were Queen Sybil and the Archbishop of Salerno. 
They were detained by Philip of Suabia or his minions. Im- 
mediately after his accession. Innocent took up the cause of 
the captives. He ordered '^Wicel de Berc",who held the 
archbishop, to free him under pain of excommunication and 
interdict. If he refused, he was to be deprived of all his 

»8(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., VII, 171 (Potth., 2344). (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., 
VI, 63' (Potth., 191 1 j. (c) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 64 (Potth., 1910). (d) 
Cf, Diet, Natl, Biog,, *' John Comyn". 



APPENDIX g3 

church benefices and all his land ; and the whole diocese in 
which the captive was, or to which he was transferred, was to 
be interdicted. The Bishop of Sutri and the Abbot of St. 
Anastasius were commissioned to carry out his orders, and 
were empowered to secure the release of Sybil, her son and 
her daughter, and other Sicilians by similar measures. The 
German clergy were instructed to give full obedience to their 
acts; and the princes were warned that, unless they secured 
the release of the prisoners, the whole of Germany would be 
interdicted. The outcome of the matter was an agreement 
between Duke Philip and the papal agent, by which the 
Archbishop of Salerno was surrendered. The other captives 
escaped to France ; it is possible that their flight was made 
easy, because of the pressure exerted by Rome.^^ 

20 Lands of supporters of the Bishop of Hildesheim, 1200, 

Conrad, the Bishop of Hildesheim, transferred himself with- 
out papal authority to the see of Wlirzburg. In spite of sus- 
pension and excommunication, he opposed the person prop- 
erly elected. He was supported by the Counts Adolph, 
Herman, and Henry of Harzburg, Frederick of Lille and the 
ministerial of his church, namely Lupoid and ^^Escherte", 
and by Ugo the Vicar. On this account the pope instructed 
three German clerics to investigate the matter. If things were 
found to be as reported to him and if the offenders would not 
yield, these prelates were to excommunicate them and lay an 
interdict on their lands and on every place to which they 
should come. These orders were given February 2, and were 
to remain in force until the offenders submitted. Conrad 
yielded to the pope shortly after (April, 1200), and the sen- 
tence against his supporters had no further purpose. ^^ 

^^ (a) Inn. Ill, Epp , I, 24, 26 (Potth., 29, 27). (b) Gesta, c. 22, 
23, 26. (c) Robt. Altissiod., in Rec, XVIII, 264. (d) Minorita 
Florent. , in Bohmer, Pontes^ IV, 615. (e) Winkelmann, PhiL vo7t Schwaben^ 
I, 80, n. 4. 

20(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 335, 574; II, 54, 201, 204, 278, 288. 
(Potth., 944). (b) Winkelmann, Phil. v. Schwaben^ I, 513, Erlauter- 
ungen, VIII. 



94 THE INTERDICT 

21 Lands of Hermann of Thicringia^ 1200. 

Hermann, Landgrave of Thuringia, had given an oath of 
homage to Otto of Brunswick ; afterwards he refused to keep 
it and allied himself with Philip of Suabia. Innocent, there- 
fore, instructed the Archbishop of Mainz to urge the Land- 
grave to keep his oath, and, if he refused, to force him, by 
papal excommunication and by interdict of his lands, to return 
to his allegiance, or at least to restore what Otto had paid him 
for it. It may have been, as Otto believed, that this threat 
caused the vacillating Hermann to grow cool in the cause of 
Philip and ultimately to desert him entirely. However, the 
fear of ecclesiastical discipline had not impressed Hermann 
deeply enough to keep him from yielding to Philip's military 
force. ^^ 

22 Lands of Louis of Bavaria and others. 
An interdict was authorized in 1201.^'^ 

23 Lands of the Count of Na^nur^ 1204. 

At the orders of John, Bishop of Cambrai, a structure put 
up by Philip of Namur was razed to the ground. Philip, aided 
by the nobles of his locality, retaliated with an armed force, 
and carried devastation into the bishop's possessions. He 
oppressed the prelate so severely as to make his ruin immi- 
nent. Bishop John put the count and his supporters under 
excommunication , but to no purpose ; he therefore appealed 
to Rome. April 10, Innocent republished the excommunica- 
tion and ordered that the lands of the Count of Namur and 
his adherents be interdicted, and that an ambulatory interdict 

21 (a) Inn. 0pp., Ill, 1023, No. 27 (Potth., 1197). (b) Reg. de negotio 
imp., in Migne, Fat, Lat., 216, col. 1 108, No. 106. Otto writes the 
pope: "... Langravium Thuringiae . . . perpotentiam non habuimus, 
sed per magnam vestram sollicitudinem et frequentem." (c) Chron. Mont. 
Sereni, MGSS., XXIII, p. 170. *' , . . lantgravius . . . hortatu papae 
ad Ottonem rediit secumque regem Bohemiae a Philippo deficere per- 
suasit." (d) Winkelmann, Pkil. v, Schwaben, I, 328, and note 2. 

22Meiller, Reg. d. Sahb, Erzbisch., 170, No. 7 (Potth., 1250). 



APPENDIX gg 

pursue the count, if within one month the offenders had not 
yielded. 23 

24 Lands of Philip of Suabia, 1205. 

When Innocent deposed the Archbishop of Mainz, Phihp of 
Suabia supported the archbishop so vigorously that he was 
threatened with interdict. The Patriarch of Aquileia and 
Peter, Abbot of Neuburg, were instructed to interdict Philip's 
lands and all places to which he should come, unless he with- 
drew his favor from Lupoid, the Archbishop, within a month 
after being warned.^* 

25 Lands of Henry ^ Count Palatine^ 120^^^^ 

26 Lands of Henry, Duke of Brabant, 1205.^^ 

27 Lands of Leopold of Austria, I20g, 

Leopold, Duke of Austria, had seized some of the posses- 
sions of the Bishop of Bamberg because of the bishop's sup- 
posed connivance at the murder of Philip of Suabia. The 
pope decided to investigate the accusation, but before taking 
up the case he desired that the accused prelate's affairs and 
possessions be in the condition in which they were prior to 
Philip's murder. The Archbishop of Salzburg was delegated 
to secure a restoration of the propert}^ sequestrated by the 
Duke of Austria ; and, if such extreme measures should be 
found necessary, he was ordered to use excommunication upon 
his person and interdict upon his lands ; the right of appeal 
was denied. In order to restore all the aft^airs of the accused 
bishop to their former status, the pope ordered the Archbishop 
of Mainz, the Bishop of Wiirzburg, and the Abbot of Fulda to 

2-Va) Inn. Ill, Epp., VII, 48 (PoUh., 2172). (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., 
VII, 45 (PoUh., 2176). 

^^Ibid., VIII, 84 (Potth., 2530). Cf. Winkelmann, Phil. v. Schwaben, 
I, 378f. 

25(a) Inn. 0pp., Ill, 1124, No. 120 (Potth., 2489). (b) Ibid.,^o, 
121 (Potth., 2490). (c) Winkelmann, Phil. v. Schivaben, I, 365. 

26(a) Inn. 0pp., Ill, 1124, No. 121 (Potth., 2490). (b) Winkel- 
mann, Phil. V. Schwab en ^ I, 365. 



g6 THE INTERDICT 

attend to this restitution and interdict the lands of any who 
opposed it.^^ 

CASES IN WHICH IT IS PROBABLE THAT AN INTERDICT WAS LAID. 

28 Invaders of the Monastery of St, Victor (^Marseilles) , iigS}^ 

29 Antioch, 1207-1208,'^ 
%^ '' Spigant'\ i2og}^ 

31 Diocese of Osimo, about 1211,^^ 

32 Rouen ^ about June , iigS, 

In June, 1198, the pope addressed a letter to the Arch- 
bishop of Rouen, from which it appears that the archbishop 
had issued a sentence of excommunication and interdict 
against certain clerks and laymen of his diocese, and that 
these were contumaciously refusing obedience. It was there- 
fore ordered that the sentence should continue in force until 
satisfaction was made, and that any one who violated these 
orders should be smitten by canonical penalties. On the 
same day, in another letter, in compliance with the request of 
the prelate, the pope ordered that all persons subject to the 
diocesan law of the archbishop should strictly observe any 
sentence he might issue, unless they could show special privi- 
lege or other legitimate cause for not doing so.^^ The first of 
these letters leaves some doubt as to the kind of interdict 
meant; if excommunication applied to all '' clerks and lay- 
men", then the interdict was necessarily local, as a personal 
interdict would under such circumstances be meaningless. 
The situation would then be that all clerks and laymen were 

2"^ (a) Meiller, Reg, d. Salzb. Erzbisck., 170, No. 7 (Potth., 1250). This 
reference is to a previous episode at Salzburg (1201) in which there is a 
suggestion that an interdict was threatened, (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., XII, 118, 
119, 120 (Potth., 3841, 3842, 3843}. (c) Chron. Mont. Sereni, MGSS., 
XXIII, p. 175. 

28 Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 268 (Potth., 282). 

29(a) Ibid, XI, 9 (Potth., 3314). (b) Cf, Potth., 1689. 

30 Inn. Ill, Epp., XII, 144 (Potth., 3844). 

^^Ibid, XIV, 20 (Potth., 4203). 

32 (a) Ibid,, I, 266 (Potth., 277). (b) Ibid,, 265 (Potth., 276). 



APPENDIX 



97 



under excommunication and local interdict. Besides, the 
interdict, if personal, could not have affected all the clerks 
and laymen, for in that case the excommunication would have 
been entirely superfluous ; and the only way to reconcile the 
matter would be to regard some of the disciplined as excom- 
municated, and others as personally interdicted. 

As far as the papal letters from which these facts are drawn 
are concerned, either view is justifiable. There are, however, 
several other papal letters which add some light and some 
complication. On June 3, the pope wrote a letter *^Uni- 
verso populo Rothomagensi ' ' , notifying them of the excom- 
munication of the people of Rouen. On the following day 
two letters were issued ; one to the Archbishop of Canterbury 
and his suffragan bishops, and another to the Archbishop of 
Rouen and his suffragan bishops, instructing them to pub- 
lish in their dioceses the sentence of excommunication issued 
against the burgesses of Rouen. ^^ According to their term- 
inology these letters have to do with a case of excommunica- 
tion. If so, it is not an ordinary excommunication ; if one at 
all, it affects the citizens of a whole city, which makes it pos- 
sible to see in it an interdict. And this is supported by the 
letter of June 11, which, as has been said, mentions an inter- 
dict already laid against certain clerks and laymen of the 
diocese. 

The objections to identifying the ^' excommunication 
against the burgesses of Rouen ' ' with the ' excommunication 
and interdict of certain clerks and laymen of the diocese * ' are 
obvious : first, the ^* burgesses of Rouen " and ** clerks and lay- 
men of the diocese " cannot mean the same persons. That 
the burgesses are laymen of the diocese is undeniable, but what 
becomes of the clerks? The answer to this lies in the pur- 
pose of the earlier letters ; one of these is directed to the peo- 
ple of Rouen and notified them of the sentence and could 
have no object in mentioning the clerks, the other two were 

^^ Arch, du depart, de la Seine-Inferieure, Invent, somm.y VI, 3596. 



gg THE INTERDICT 

directed to prelates and instructed them to publish the sen- 
tence against the citizens of Rouen, and there was no need of 
mentioning clerks in those letters, since the sentence against 
them needed no publication. Second, if the laymen were 
under interdict, and the clerks under excommunication, by 
what argument can any one justify a deliberate interpretation 
of the excommunication of the burgesses to mean a local in- 
terdict? In answer to this it may be said that the word ex- 
communication is frequently used, even in the thirteenth cen- 
tury, when it undoubtedly refers to local interdict.^* The 
conclusion drawn from the letters above cited is that the city 
of Rouen was under a local interdict in 1198, and at the same 
time, for causes connected with those of the interdict, some 
of the clergy were excommunicated. 

33 Nevers^ 1211-1212. 

Herv6, Count of Nevers, disagreed for a long time with the 
monastery of Vezelai. About 121 1 he carried his aggression 
so far as to blockade the monastery for a while, allowing noth- 
ing to pass in or out without his permission ; he also forced 
clerks to appear in civil courts and otherwise did much harm 
to the church. Herv^ had married within the prohibited de- 
grees, a circumstance which gave the church a special point 
of attack. The pope wrote to the Bishop of Paris, the chan- 
cellor of Paris, and the Abbot of St. Victor that they should 
use excommunication and, if necessary, interdict to bring the 
count to terms, if Philip Augustus had not induced the count 
to yield within two months. Their commission was good for 
three years. In another letter, apparently not extant, he 
gave these same commissioners orders to investigate the report 
about the consanguinity of the count and the countess. These 
instructions greatly disturbed the count^s agent at Rome, who 
begged the pope to cancel the orders, giving all assurance he 
could that the count would cease molesting the monastery. 

^* (a) Potth., 1526, 1527. See below, case 66 (Cremona, 1201). (b) 
See below, n. 57a. 



APPENDIX gg 

The pontiff thereupon ordered the commissioners to take no 
action unless they had already done so ; these second orders 
followed the first after an interval of six months. If the com- 
missioners obeyed their first instructions to act within two 
months, they had taken some action when the new bull 
arrived. The first orders, however, read that interdict was to 
be used if necessary^ and it is very likely that the sentence was 
never issued. By the next year the disputants came to some 
agreement and Herv^ was absolved from excommunication on 
December 20, 12 13, and obtained a papal dispensation 
sanctioning his marriage. ^^ 

CASES OF ACTUAL INTERDICT. 

34 Navarre y iigy.^^ 

35 CesenUy December, iigS.^'^ 

36 Tortona, iigS,^ 

37 CastellOy May, iigg.^^ 

38 King John^s possessions, 1200.^ 

39 Lands of the Sons of Galbina, about 1203.^ 

40 Lands of Galhis, about I20J.^ 

41 Metz, i2ogf' 

35(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., XIV, 126 (Potth., 4332), (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., 
XV, 83 (Polth., 4514). (c) Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 22 (Potth., 4704). 
(d) The fact that absolution from excommunication only is granted argues 
that the interdict was never laid, (e) Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 154 (Potth., 
4862). 

36 (a) 3id., I, 92 (Potth., 81). (b) Ibid., 287 (Potth., 328). On June 
6, 1 198, Innocent gave the Bishop of Pampluna the privilege of holding 
silent services in his own chapel in time of interdict. The bull gives no in- 
dication whether there is an interdict in force in Navarre or whether this 
pri\nlege is given in anticipation of one. 

^'' Ibid., 6jo\ (Potth., 473). 
^^ Ibid,, 132 (Potth., 150), 
^"^ Ibid, II, 285 (Potth., 718). 

*OTheiner, Vet, Mon, Slav, Merid,, I, 48, Nos. 43, 44 (Potth., 997, 
998). 

" Mittarelli, Annal. Camald,, IV, App., col, 255 (Potth., 1904). 

"Inn. Ill, Epp., X, 143 (Potth., 3205). 

*3 Cited from Raumer, Gesch. Hohen^t,, VI, 168, n. 7. 



lOo THE INTERDICT 

42 Lands of Ours, Removed i2iiJ^ 

43 Lands of Count Stephen of Burgundy ^ 1212^^ 

44 Farts of Achaia, etc., between May, 12 12, and August^ 

1213,"^ 

45 Treviso, October, 1200, 

In a battle between the people of Treviso and the forces led 
by the Bishop of Belluno, Gerardus Taciolus, the prelate, had 
lost his life (1197) ; for this reason Celestin III put Treviso 
under interdict. This endured until October of 1200, at 
which time the citizens of Treviso sent messengers to Innocent 
offering to make satisfaction if the pope would raise the inter- 
dict. In the course of the negotiations the question arose 
whether Celestin had laid the interdict for the death of the 
bishop or for other excesses of the city also. The bull laying 
the interdict could not be found in the register, and for this 
reason Innocent sent agents into the vicinity of Treviso to 
search for a copy of the bull. He forbade with threat of 
anathema the concealment of such bulls. Should a copy be 
found, and should it appear that the interdict was laid only for 
the death of the bishop, or should no copy be found, in which 
case Treviso was to have the benefit of the doubt, the inter- 
dict was to be relaxed, provided the citizens took oath to abide 
by the papal award. But if the bull was found, and it ap- 
peared that the interdict was laid for other causes than the 
death of the bishop, the interdict was in no case to be re- 
laxed until they had made satisfaction for those excesses. 
Nothing more is known of this case ; it is probable that the 
interdict was relaxed soon after these instructions were given, 
for relaxation was certain if no letters were found ; and, if the 
letters were found and gave evidence that the people of 
Treviso had been sentenced for several offences, they no doubt 

*^Inn. 0pp., Ill, 485 (Potth., 4333), 
*5Inn. Ill, Epp., XV, 11 (Potth., 4408). 

*6 (a) Ibid,, XVI, 98 (Potth., 4798). (b) Ibid., Epp., XV, 75 (Potth., 
4483). 



APPENDIX lOi 

gave the extra satisfaction, rather than endure longer the 
interdict which had already compelled them to yield/' 
46 Parma and Fiacenza, iigS. 

This interdict was laid at the command of Innocent III and 
was afterwards confirmed by him. Peter, Cardinal-deacon of 
S. Maria in Via Lata, while performing the functions of legate 
in Lombardy had been robbed of some of his possessions, and 
the robber took refuge in Parma and Piacenza. This was the 
cause of the interdict. It was only partially observed, and 
the pope found it necessary to command the clergy to see that 
it was heeded. The cities were also threatened with punish- 
ment, if they failed to procure a restoration of the stolen 
property : the church of Borgo San Donnino, near Parma, was 
to be transferred to the jurisdiction of Rome j Piacenza was 
to be subjected to the Archbishop of Ravenna ; if this did not 
prove adequate, both cities were to be deprived of episcopal 
dignity. These threats did not avail, and on April 21, 1198, 
Innocent wrote to the bishops and clergy of both cities that 
his threat would take effect if they remained obdurate after 
fifteen days. He also gave them to understand that he had 
written to the Empress Constance, to the Kings of France and 
England, to the Count and Barons of Champagne, to the 
Duke of Burgundy, and to the Count of Maurienne, instruct- 
ing them to seize the goods of all Parman and Piacenzan 
merchants within their domains ; that this property was to be 
held until the cities had made satisfaction to both the plun- 
dered cardinal and the pope , and until the pope gave instruc- 
tions about the disposal of the properties. In addition, the 
consuls of Piacenza and the Podesta of Parma were threatened 
with excommunication, and all cities and lands to which they 
should come were to suspend services as long as they were 
present.*^ 

The cities persisted in their disobedience and the punish- 

*nnn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 39 (Potth., 1160). Cf. ibid,, II, 27. 
*^Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 121, 122 (Potth., 91, 89). 



J02 T^HE INTERDICT 

ments went into effect/^ The Archbishop of Ravenna was 
notified of the increase of his jurisdiction,^^ and a bull dated 
August 26, 1 1 98, shows that the threat against Parma had at 
some previous time been executed by the Archbishop of Milan 
and the Bishop of Como/^ By October of the same year, 
however, Parma came to an agreement with the cardinal. The 
citizens agreed to pay half of the sum which had been taken, 
and made a first payment of one hundred marks; the re- 
mainder was to be paid by the octave of the next Easter. 
The cardinal surrendered his claim to the other half of the 
sum, relaxed the sentences of excommunication and interdict, 
and restored the church to the city. The pope confirmed the 
cardinal's acts and surrendered whatever claims the papacy 
had in the stolen sums.^'^ In November of the same year San 
Donnino ^ was notified of its restoration to Parma. No further 
mention of the interdict of Piacenza is made ; it is possible 
that it ended at the same time as that of Parma, for it is not 
specified in the letters that Parma is paying merely her share 
of the plunder. 

47 Piacenza^ sentence removed 1215}^ 

48 Pisa^ iigS. 

In 1 198 the pope sent two cardinals to Pisa to induce her 
to join the Tuscan League. The Pisans were unwilling to do 

^^ Whether at the time threatened or not is uncertain, as the letter to the 
Archbishop of Ravenna is undated. 

^Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 123 (Potth., 90). 

"Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 340 (Potth., 355). 

52 Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 393 (Potth., 399). 

^3 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 403 (Potth., 413). (b) Aguirre, Cone, Hisp.^ 
V, 118. The bull given by Aguirre, though beginning with the same 
words as that in Migne (Inn. 0pp., I, 378), is different. The bull in 
Migne is probably a combination of two letters. The interdict mentioned 
at the close of the bull, is, as far as the evidence of the fragmentary letter 
goes, a personal interdict. 

^Annal. Placentini Guelfi, ad an. 1215, in MGSS., XVIII, p. 431. 
When this sentence was laid is not stated by the annalist, but it is very 
improbable that this is the interdict laid in 1198. Cf. Luchaire, Le Con- 
cile de Latran, p. 16. 



APPENDIX 103 

this, and to their great annoyance their city was interdicted. 
Later Innocent made certain demands of the league and in- 
structed the cardinals that, if the rectors of the league agreed 
to his conditions, Pisa was also to be induced to agree, and 
the interdict was under no circumstances to be relaxed unless 
she did. Should the rectors of the league, however, not be 
ready to meet his wishes, then, since it seemed rather severe 
that Pisa should for so long a time lie under interdict on ac- 
count of the delay of the league, he ordered that the interdict 
be removed without delay, if the citizens would pledge them- 
selves to abide by the papal award. Should this pledge be 
unobtainable becausa Pisa was just then without a rector, the 
legates were to give the city license to celebrate services and 
were to rely on the promises of the city's nuncios. It was to 
be understood by the citizens that, if at a later time the rectors 
of the league accepted the papal order, Pisa, unless she did 
likewise, should again fall under interdict.^ 

49 Narni^ iigS. 

At the beginning of Innocent's pontificate, the inhabitants 
of Narni were seriously molesting Otricoli. In spite of the 
warning to discontinue under threat of interdict and penalty 
of a thousand marks, they seized and destroyed the fortress. 
In the struggle they were aided by the citizens of Viterbo, 
who were also interdicted. The pope thereupon sent an army, 
which reduced the inhabitants of Narni to submission. He 
exacted the bond of a thousand marks and obliged them to 
add two hundred pounds, to be used for the restoration of the 
ruined walls, before he relaxed the interdict."^ 

50 Viterbo^ about iigg-1200. 

Innocent, having been opposed by Viterbo in the affair of 
Narni, favored the Romans in their dispute with Viterbo over 

^ (a) Cronica di Pisa, in Muratori, Rer. It, Scr,^ XV, 977. (b) Inn. 
Ill, Epp., I, 35 (Potth., 39). Cf. ibid,, 15, 34. 

^ (a) This threat may have been made by Celestin III. (b) Gesta, c. 
133. (c) Ibid,, c. 16. 



104 'THE INTERDICT 

Vitorchiano. He commanded the people of Viterbo not to 
molest Vitorchiano, or to justify their course before the curia. 
They completely ignored this command and were interdicted. 
In the struggle which followed, the pope gained a point by 
winning over the Tuscan League, and finally Viterbo was sub- 
jected by force* of arms.^' 

51 Narni^ 1208. 

Whether this interdict of Narni is connected with that of 
1 1 98 is not evident from the limited statements of the sources. 
The papal bull of September, 1208, begins by stating that 
since the people of Narni were so reprobate, and since the 
pope no longer chose to tolerate their insolence, he had placed 
the city under the strictest interdict. No sacrament what- 
ever was to be allowed except penance for the dying and bap- 
tism for infants. Burial was denied, and if any one gave 
burial in consecrated ground, he was to be excommunicated. 
It was prohibited to trade with Narni under pain of excom- 
munication. The clergy was ordered to leave the city, and 
go to convenient neighboring places; and, if the city refused 
to yield, it was to be deprived of its bishop.^® 

52 Leon and Portugal^ Iig8-i204, 

When Innocent was elected pope there was an interdict on 
Leon and Portugal, which had been laid by Gregory, Cardinal- 
deacon of the title of St. Angelus, because of the consanguin- 
eous marriage of AKonso, King of Leon, to Tarasia, Princess 
of Portugal. This union was dissolved in 1196, but the inter- 
dict was not removed, and still existed when Innocent came 
into power.^^ In April, 1198, he ordered his emissary, 

^^ (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., II, 207. The sentence is called an excommunica- 
ti6n. (b) Gesta, c. 133. (c) Cf, Inn. 0pp. , I, clxxix, n. 40. 

58 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 143 (Potth., 3501). 

5^ (a) La Cl^de, Hist, de Port,, II, I56f. (b) Portugal was also under 
interdict (Mariana, De Rebus Hisp., lib. IX, c. 19, in Schott, Hisp. 
Illustr., II, 544). (c) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 92 (Potth., 81), (d) That 
Gregory was in Spain at the time of Celestin appears from the fact that the 
Bishop of Zamora, who was excommunicated by Gregory (Epp., I, 92), 
came to Rome in the time of Celestin to seek absolution {ibid,, 58). A 



APPENDIX lOS 

Rayner, to relax the interdict/^ if Alfonso would give oath to 
obey the commands of the church relative to the dissolved 
marriage. ^^ Whether the interdict was relaxed under these 
conditions remains a mystery ; its subsequent history is ob- 
scured by the new interdict threatened in the same bull which 
provided for the relaxation of the old.^ The King of Castile, 
who had used arms to compel the dissolution of the marriage, 
had given his daughter, Berengaria,as wife to AKonso in 1197. 
This was done for the sake of peace and with the consent of 
Pope Celestin, though Berengaria, like Tarasia, was related to 
Alfonso within the prohibited degrees. When report of this 
reached the new pontiff, Innocent, he took immediate action 
and dispatched Rayner to Spain to dissolve the marriage.^''^ 
Rayner's instructions were to warn the monarchs of Leon and 
Castile earnestly, and, if they refused to dissolve the incestuous 
marriage, to employ excommunication and interdict against 
them. Rayner, after repeatedly warning Alfonso, finally set a 
time and a place at which the king might show cause why the 
interdict should not be laid. The monarch did not appear, 
even though the legate waited beyond the time set. The in- 
terdict was then issued upon Leon ; Castile was not interdicted 
because its ruler professed himself ready to dissolve the illicit 
union. 

Efforts were at once made to secure a dispensation from 
Innocent. Three Spanish prelates applied in Rome for 
special consideration, but were given such a rebuff that they 

Portuguese writer states that the cardinal sent to Spain was the Cardinal of 
St. Angelus (AASS., June, IV, 389), and, as the marriage of Alfonso and , 
Tarasia occurred in 1194 (Hoveden \^R. Ser."], Ill, 90), this cardinal 
could have been Gregory only; for he was promoted in 1190 (Eubel, 
Hier. Cath,), But, whether the sentence laid by Gregory was because of 
the offensive marriage or not, it is clear that the sentence, stated by Epp., 
I, 92, to have been laid by him, was laid in the time of Celestin III. 
The correctness of this is supported by the fact that Gregory was in Rome 
and attested letters beginning with March 13, 1198 (Potth., 46, 54, 107, 
etc.). Cf. also Epp., I, 125. (e) Hoveden {R. Ser.), Ill, 90. 

eojnn. Ill, Epp., I, 125 (Potth., 131). 

61 Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 92, 93 (Potth., 81, 92). 

62Gesta, c. 58. 



Io6 THE INTERDICT 

quickly saw the hopelessness of their plea.^ Neither did the 
twenty thousand marks sent by Alfonso to the pope and the 
cardinals, nor his oflfer to support two hundred crusading 
knights, secure for him the privilege of living with Berengaria 
until God gave them an heir, or of living with her for three 
years at least. Innocent yielded to none of his inducements.^^ 
When the Spanish emissaries saw that they could not obtain 
a dispensation, they prayed that at least the interdict might be 
relaxed, because it brought harm to the church from three 
sources — from heretics, Saracens, and the Christians them- 
selves.^* Innocent was not inclined to grant their petition, 
but for the sake of the great number involved he finally de- 
termined upon tentative mitigation. Services were to be 
allowed in the realm, but no layman was to enjoy Chrisiatn 
burial, though clerks might be buried without solemnity in the 
cemeteries. In order not to lessen the severity of the sentence 
for the royal offenders, it was determined that they and their 
principal councillors and adherents should be bound by ex- 
communication, and that services should cease in any city or 
town when they were present. The rulers of Castile were 
ordered under pain of excommunication and interdict to aid 
in securing the dissolution of the incestuous union. These 
efforts failed to have the desired effect \ it was not until 1 204 
that Berengaria separated from her husband. Even then not 
the interdict, but apparently her own desire, induced her to 
leave him; for in May, 1204, she was absolved, though 
Alfonso remained under interdict. The absolution of Alfonso 
and those excommunicated with him followed on June 20 ; and 
at the same time the pope agreed that the interdict was to be 
removed upon the receipt of sufificient security/^ 

^^Hoveden {^R, Ser.), IV, 78-79. 

^ Gesta, c. 58. See above, p. 74. 

«*(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., VII, 67, 94 (Potth., 2219, 2249). (b) When 
the marriage of Alfonso to Berengaria took place, Alfonso transferred a 
chateau to Castile, probably as a dower. Upon the dissolution of the 
marriage Innocent ordered the chateau to be restored to Leon, under pain 
of excommunication and interdict. There is no evidence that the threat 
was executed. 



APPENDIX 107 

53 Porto ^ i2og. 

Laid by the Bishop of Porto on his city and diocese.^ 

54 Tortosay 11 gg-- 12 07, 

In April, 11 99, a papal letter was addressed to the Hos- 
pitalers of Amposta^"', in which it was stated that the Hos- 
pitalers had been violating their privileges by burying and by 
admitting to the sacraments persons interdicted by the Bishop 
of Tortosa ; they were commanded to discontinue such prac- 
tices. The cause for this interdict on Tortosa was the refusal 
of the citizens to pay tithes and first-fruits. No further men- 
tion of an interdict on the city is found until 1207, when, 
about November, it is reported that an '* excommunication " 
laid upon the city for the non-payment of tithes and first- 
fruits was removed. During the time that this excommunica- 
tion was in force about a hundred bodies had been buried in 
the cemetery of the church. A condition of the relaxation 
was that these bodies be exhumed. This was done to expiate 
the former contempt of the citizens.^ Two circumstances 
make it reasonable to consider the excommunication men- 
tioned in 1207 the same as the interdict mentioned in 1199 : 
first, in each case the sentence is said to have been laid for the 
same cause, namely, the retention of tithes and first-fruits; 
second, a hundred people were buried during the time the 
sentence was in effect. This number of dead indicates an in- 
terval of some years, in view of the comparatively small popu- 
lation of mediaeval towns of the importance of Tortosa. Nor 
does a hundred account for all that died in this interval, for it 
is not at all likely that even a majority of the dead were buried 
in the cemetery; the letter of 1199 shows that some had 
secured burial with the Hospitalers, and no doubt others re- 
spected the commands of the church enough not to infringe 

^Raynald., Anna!., 1210, § 4. Cf. Potth., 4CX)i, 4002, and Luchaire, 
Les Royautts Vassales du Saint- Siege ^ 13. 

®^ Villanueva, Viage literario a las iglesias de Espana^ V, 275 (Potth., 
Addend., 664a, 25466; cf, Potth., 664b). 

«8lnn. Ill, Epp., X, 158 (Potth., 3234). 



lo8 THE INTERDICT 

her rules. In view of these circumstances, it seems reason- 
able to assert that both letters refer to the same interdict. 
55 Flanders^ iigS-iigg. 

In the decade preceding the accession of Innocent, Flan- 
ders had two interdicts. About 1194 the Count of Flanders 
and others damaged church property and an interdict was laid 
upon his lands.^^ This interdict was removed by 1196 or 
1 1 97, for at that time a second interdict was threatened at 
the instance of the Cardinal Legate Melior."^^ Stephen of 
Tournay strongly objected to the proposed interdict, on the 
ground of the harm which would result from it.'^ Neverthe- 
less the sentence was laid. The time of its removal was prob- 
ably the latter part of 1197 or the first part of 1198. A third 
interdict was laid on Flanders in the early years of the new 
pontificate, the causes for which ran back into the time when 
the second interdict was in force. In June, 1196, a compact 
was made between Philip Augustus and Baldwin, Count of 
Flanders and Hainault, by which Baldwin swore fealty to 
the King of France. "^^ Article 5 of the pact reads : *' Further- 
more we will ask and in good faith require the Archbishop of 
Reims and the Bishops of Arras, Cambray, Tournay, and 
Terouanne that so often as we shall fail to keep the aforesaid 
terms they shall excommunicate us and place our whole land 
under interdict, regardless of any appeal, until emendation be 
made to the King of France." ^^ Later Baldwin found that he 
could not secure observance of the pact from his subjects, and 
he requested and secured a release sanctioned by Philip. The 
latter, however, concealed the fact that he had released the 
count, secured a papal confirmation of the compact from 

^^Stepb. Tornac, Epp., 232, in Migne, Pat Lat., 211, col. 502. Cf. 
^^^.,XIX, 462a. 

''^Steph. Tornac, Epp., 231, in Migne, Pat. Lat.^ col. 501. 

"^^ Ibid., 233, 234, in ibid, col. 502-504. 

■^^Delisle, Cat. des Actes de Ph. Aug., No. 497. Cf. Diet. Natl. Biog., 
XLVIII, 142. 

7-^ (a) Rec, XIX, 352-353. Cf. Potth., 673. (b) Delisle, y^^/^j, No. 
498. 



APPENDIX log 

Celestin III/* and on this pontiff's death a reconfirmation 
from his successor. '^^ The new pontiff instructed the Arch- 
bishop of Reims and his suffragans to enforce the compact by 
excommunication and interdict if necessary. Thereafter 
trouble arose /^ and, when the Archbishop of Reims was about 
to excommunicate the count and interdict his lands, Baldwin 
appealed to Rome, asserting that the papal letters confirming 
the convention were obtained under false pretences. This 
apparently did not hinder the laying of the interdict, for the 
papal letter of April 26, 1 199, which relates these matters, 
ordered that the count be absolved from excommunication and 
his lands from interdict within twenty days after the receipt 
of the letter, if the complaint of the count was true. The pope 
added that, if those instructed failed to do as bidden, he had 
commissioned others to fulfill his orders." On the same date 
the chancellery issued a letter to Philip, in which the pope 
explained his action and requested the king not to be disturbed 
over this just decision. "^^ Two days later the pope took Bald- 
win and his wife under papal protection, forbidding any one 
to use excommunication or interdict against them without 
good and sufficient cause. "^^ In consequence of the order of 
Innocent, the interdict was probably removed. In January, 
1200, Baldwin made peace with Philip. ^^ 
56 Normandy y iigg, 

Normandy was interdicted by the legate, Peter of Capua, 
on account of the detention of Philip of Beauvais, who was 
taken prisoner by the English and was detained for some 
time.®^ Immediately after Innocent's accession he ** sent his 

"^nnn. Ill, Epp., II, 40 (Potth., 673). 

^^(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 130 (Potth., 153). (b) See above, n. 74. 
■^^ Delisle, Actes^ No. 519. 
^"^ (a) Potth., 673. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., II, 41. 
'^^Rec, XIX, 375 (Potth., 672). 
^9 Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 45 (Potth., 680). 
^^ Delisle, Actes^ 579. 

81 (a) Hoveden, Chron. {R. Ser.), IV, 94. (b) Rigord, De Gest. Phil. 
August., in Rec, XVII, 50. (c) Diet. NatL Biog,y XLVIII, 142-143. 



no THE INTERDICT 

legate to King John desiring him to release the Bishop of Bel- 
voire (taken prisoner by King Richard the first in the field, 
and kept prisoner by him all his life, notwithstanding this and 
other popes' importunate letters for his enlargement) under 
pain of interdict, who had then by the space of two years been 
detained under most cruel imprisonment (some months in his 
very armes, in which he was taken fighting, not suffered to be 
put off day or night). But, because the said bishop was taken 
in armes as a soldier and plunderer, against the dignity of his 
order, the king (notwithstanding the pope's entreaties and 
menaces) would not enlarge him until he had paid 6,000 
marks sterling money to his exchequer, and two thousand 
marks for his expenses, during his imprisonment under King 
Richard and himself ; which he accordingly paid.'' ^'^ Another 
account gives three thousand marks as the amount paid by the 
bishop for his freedom. The interdict was not relaxed until 
the bishop was freed.^'' 
57 France^ 1200. 

The story of the interdict of France begins with the search 
of Philip Augustus for a queen. His choice was cast on a 
princess of Denmark, reports of whose good qualities had 
penetrated far beyond the confines of her native land. Agents 
passed to and fro between the Capetian and Danish courts to 
arrange a marriage. Their labors were successful, and the 
Princess Ingeborg with her suite made the journey to France. 
Meantime her suitor was all impatience, and, as soon as he 
heard that the negotiations for the marriage had been success- 
ful, he hastened toward his boundaries to meet his bride. The 
meeting took place at Amiens, and Philip was apparently so 
charmed that he could brook no delay of the marriage. In 
the presence of nobles and prelates, and amidst regal splendor, 
the ceremony took place on August 14 or 15, 1193. On the 
following day, in the midst of mass, the king was observed to 
shudder and grow pale as he looked at the queen. From that 

®2Prynne*s Records, II, 227. ^ See above, n. 8ia. 



APPENDIX 



III 



moment he hated her for reasons which have never become 
known. Idle tongues, indeed, spread tales touching the 
queen's good name, rumor told of witchcraft, and all wondered 
at the cause of the sudden and violent repulsion with which 
the king regarded Ingeborg. His estrangement was now as 
complete as his enchantment had formerly been thorough. 
Nor did this unexpected passion subside with the passing of 
time ; instead it began to be rumored that the cause of the 
estrangement was the king's discovery of consanguinity with 
the queen, and it was upon this plea that the Archbishop of 
Reims, on behalf of the prelates of France, finally pronounced 
Philip divorced from the object of his disappointment (No- 
vember 4 or 5, 1 193). Ingeborg was present; but, as she 
could not understand the language in which the hearing was 
conducted, she remained ignorant of what was being done 
until after the action was taken. Then she was told of her 
divorce. In despair she employed the only course open to 
her and appealed to Rome. 

At that time the inert Celestin ruled. He remonstrated 
against this flagrant violation of marriage vows, rebuked the 
prelates who had granted the divorce, and canceled their 
sentence, but never proceeded to more active measures. 
Luckily for Ingeborg and unfortunately for Philip , this senile 
pontiff soon went the way of all flesh, and was succeeded by 
the vigorous Innocent. The new pontiff was early confronted 
by the ambassadors of King Cnut of Denmark, who com- 
plained both of the injustice done his sister and of Philip's 
second marriage ; for that monarch, as if to oflend Ingeborg 
doubly, had taken as wife Agnes of Meran (in June, 11 96). 
Innocent was always ready to defend the canons of the church, 
and, upon these complaints of Cnut and others, he instructed 
the legate, Peter of Capua, to use all means to induce the 
King of France to dismiss Agnes, and to receive his lawful 
wife, and, if Philip failed to do so, to sentence France 
with interdict.®* Philip soon received warning of the inten- 

*^^ Hoveden, Chron., Pars post., ad an. 1199 i^R. Ser,), IV, 85-86. 



112 THE INTERDICT 

tions of the pontiff from no less a person than the pontiff him- 
self, who assured the king that, cost what it might, he would if 
necessary raise his hand in defense of Ingeborg.^^ The king 
refused to be moved, in spite of repeated monitions and the 
efforts of the legate, who accomplished nothing in ten 
months. ^^ This lukewarmness ended when orders were received 
from Rome that, unless the king had within a month after 
warning received his rightful queen into favor, and treated her 
with proper honor, the whole realm should be interdicted. 
The pope specified what services should be allowed, and what 
prohibited, and commanded that all the prelates of France 
should observe the sentence, and cause it to be observed in 
their jurisdictions.®^ 

The legate now became active and called a general council ^ 
of all the prelates of the realm to meet at Dijon,®® in Burgundy, 
on December 6, 1199.®^ Thither he repaired on his return 
journey to Italy .^^ The Archbishops of Lyons, Reims, Besan- 
gon, and Vienne, eighteen bishops, the Abbots of Cluny, 
Vezelai, S. Remi, S. Denis ,®^ and a great many other persons®^ 
assembled there for the council, which lasted seven days, so 
important was the matter to be discussed. What happened 
can only be inferred. Undoubtedly the clergy who later re- 
fused to observe the interdict opposed the sentence ; but 

85 Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 171. 

^^Chron. Sythiense S. Bertini ad an. 1199, in Rec, XVIII, 599. 

8T Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 347 (Potth., 361). 

88 (a) Rigord, De Gest. Ph. Aug. ad an. 1199, in Rec, XVII, 51. (b) 
Chron. de S. Denis, ad an. 1199, in Rec.^ XVII, 387. 

8^ (a) Ibid, (b) Chron. S. Benigni Divionensis ad an. 1200, in Labbe, 
A^ova Bibl.^ I, 295. (c) Guill. Armor., De Gest. Ph. Aug. ad an. 1199, 
in Rec.^ XVII, 75. (d) Martene, Thesaurus^ IV, 147. (e) Gesta, c. 51. 
(f) See above, n. 86. 

^^ (a) See above, nn. 88, 89b, c. (b) Hoveden, Chron., Pars post., ad 
an. 1200 {R. Ser.)y IV, 112-113. 

^^ (a) See above, n. 86. (b) Sigeb., Contin. Acquic, ad an. 1200, in 
MGSS,jVl, 436. (c) Robt. Altiss., Chronolog. ad an. 1 199-1200, in 
Rec, XVIII, 263. 

^^ See above, n. 89b. 

^^ Gesta, c. $1. ** . . , et aliorum multorum ..." 



APPENDIX 113 

whether they were in a minority or whether they dared not 
oppose the legate's execution of his orders from the pope is a 
matter for speculation. Whatever the position of the prelates, 
the council determined to lay an interdict on France ; not, 
however, before Philip's nuncios, perceiving that such action 
was about to be taken, appealed to the pope against the coun- 
cil.^* The legate, relying on his instructions, ignored the ap- 
peal ; ^^ it was determined that the sentence should not go into 
effect until twenty days after the coming Christmas,^^ possibly 
in the hope that in the mean time the king would perceive the 
precariousness of his position and yield. The council also pro- 
mulgated a form of interdict which announced what services 
and ecclesiastical ministrations were prohibited. From Dijon, 
the legate continued his journey to Vienne, which lay without 
the bounds of Philip's realm. There he held a special coun- 
cil^^ attended by several archbishops, some of them from 
France ; ^^ in this council he promulgated the interdict ordered 
by the pope ,^ and enjoined its observance on the prelates, 
after which he went his way.^"^ Meantime Philip sent agents 
to Rome to secure relief.^^^ The twenty-day period after 

9* (a) Gesta, c. 51. (b) See above, n. 88a. (c) See above, n. 88b. 

^^ Gesta, c. 51. " . . . quatenus alibi mandatum apostolicum com- 
modius adimpleret . . . ". 

^^ See above, nn. ?i%^ 89c. 

^^ (a) Chron. S. Benigni Divionensis, ad an. 1200, in Labbe, Nova 
BibL, I, 295. *' . . apud Viennam particulare revocavit Concilium 
. . . ". (b) Gesta, c. 51. 

^^ Ibid. '* . , . apud Viennam multis Archiepiscopis convocatis, inter 
quos quidam de regno Francorum fuere praesentes ". 

93(a) Chron. Sythiense S. Bertini ad an. 1 199, in Rec, XVIII, 599. 
(b) Sigeb., Contin. Acquic, ad an. 1200, in MGSS., VI, 436. *' Sen- 
tentiam quam in Franciam ex domni pape precepto dare debuerat, ibi 
dedit et regem cum omni terra sua inaudita severitate interdixit." (c) 
See above, n. 97- 

^^(a) Gesta, c. 51. (b) Hoveden, Chron., Pars post., ad an. 1200 
(R. Ser.), IV, 112-113. 

loiGuiU. Armor., De Gest. Ph. Aug. ad an. 1199, in Rec, XVII-, 75.. 
"... non multo post Philippus Rex misit solemnes nuncios ad dominum 
Papam.'' 



114 THE INTERDICT 

Christmas having elapsed, the interdict was published and 
went into force. 

This was the sentence : 102 << ^u churches shall be closed, and 
no one shall be admitted to them unless it is to baptize infants, 
nor shall they be opened for any other purpose than for the 
care of the lights, or when the priest must get the host and 
holy water for the use of the sick. Mass may be celebrated 
early every Friday morning, for the consecration of the host 
needed for the sick, but only one clerk may be present to assist 
the priest. To take the place of mass, priests may preach on 
Sundays in the vestibules of churches, and thus spread the 
word of God. They may recite canonical hours outside of 
churches, provided laymen do not hear; if they recite the 
epistles, or the gospels, they shall take care not to be heard by 
the laity. They shall not permit bodies to be buried, or to be 
placed unburied, in cemeteries. Furthermore, they shall in- 
form the laity that they sin grievously if they bury bodies in 
unconsecrated ground, even without blessing, and that they go 
to excess in assuming another's office in this matter. The 
priests shall forbid parishioners to enter open churches in the 
land of the king ; they shall not bless the wallets of pilgrims, 
unless it be outside of the church. In passion-week they shall 
not celebrate ; on Easter-day they may celebrate privately, but 
only one clerk may be admitted, as has been stated above ; no 
one shall commune even on Easter, unless he is sick and at 
the point of death. Either on Palm Sunday or during pas- 
sion-week the people shall be told to gather before the church 
on the morning of Easter, where they will be given the privi- 
lege of eating the blessed bread and meat of the day.^^ 
Clerks positively may not admit women into the church for 
purification ; they shall advise them to gather with their neigh- 

10^ (a) Martdne, Thesaurus, IV, 147. (b) Migne, Pat, Lat», 214, col. 
xcvii, n. 60. (c) Cf, Rowland's translation, in Univ, of Penn. Trans, 
and Reprints y V, 

^^ On Easter morning it was the custom to bless some meat, bread, and 
eggs, which were eaten before any other food. 



APPENDIX 



IIS 



bors on the day of churching, and to pray outside of the 
church; women who are to be purified may not enter the 
church even for the purpose of raising children to the sacred 
font for baptism ; even after the interdict, they may not enter 
the church until they are invited to do so by the priest. The 
confession of all who seek it shall be heard by the priests in 
the vestibule of the church; and, if the church has no vesti- 
bule, the confession may be heard on the threshold of the 
outermost door, which the inclemency of wind or rain permits 
to be opened , but nowhere else ; all must be excluded except 
the person who wishes to confess, but the voices must be so 
loud that the priest and the person confessing can be heard by 
those who chance to be outside of the church. If the weather 
is mild, confession shall be heard before closed church-doors. 
Receptacles with holy water shall not be placed outside of the 
church ; nor shall clerks use holy water anywhere, since it is 
understood that all ecclesiastical sacraments are prohibited but 
those two which are excepted. Extreme Unction, which is 
the last sacrament, may not be given.'* This sentence was 
confirmed by the pope, who, however, decreed that all who 
had taken or should thereafter take the cross might hear mass 
and have Christian burial ; ^°* no others were to be excused 
from a strict observance of the interdict. 

The severity of the sentence called forth firm resistance 
from the angry Philip. He expelled from their sees all the 
prelates of his realm, because they had assented to the inter- 
dict; he seized the fees and rents of the lower clergy, ex- 
pelled many of them, and despoiled even parish priests. ^^^ 
Ingeborg, the cause of these difficulties, felt the wrath of the 
king ; she was deprived of all companionship and thrust into 
confinement in the castle of fetampes.^^ Some of the bishops 

'•^ (a) Hoveden, Chron., Pars post., ad an. 1200 (^R. Ser,), IV, 113. 
(b) Gesta, c. 84. 

i<^Ma) Chron. de S. Denis ad an. 1199, in Rec, XVII, 387. (b) 
Rigord, DeGest. Ph. Aug. ad an, 1199, in Rec.y XVII, 51. 



1 1 6 THE INTERDICT 

were very ardent in the observance of the interdict ; among 
them were the Bishops of Paris, Senlis, Soissons, Amiens, and 
Arras. ^^"^ Philip was most enraged against the Bishop of Paris, 
and sent some knights who despoiled him of his horses and 
other properties and forced him to leave his diocese on foot ; ^°^ 
the Bishop of Senlis suffered the same indignity. These pre- 
lates, however, received sympathetic and encouraging letters 
from Rome.^^^ There was by no means unanimity among the 
ecclesiastics regarding the observance of the sentence ; some 
humbly deferred to the papal order, others either from pre- 
ference for the king or from fear of him violated the inter- 
dict. ^^^ Among the latter were the Archbishop of Reims and 
the Bishops of Laon, Noyon, Auxerre, Beauvais, Terouanne, 
Meaux, Chartres, and Orleans."^ The prelates met, and after 
deliberation declared that the sentence need not be observed. ^^^ 
They sent agents to Rome to excuse their action, and to pro- 
fess that they would observe the sentence, if the pope should 
demand it ; ^^"^ in the mean time they and others of the clergy 
maintained friendly relations with the king. At the marriage 
of Philip's son in Normandy many French bishops and eccle- 
siastics were present with the king and nobles ; the Archbishop 
of Bordeaux performed the ceremony. '^'^ The Bishop of Meaux 
and Philip of Beauvais were still with the king in May, 1200."* 
The Cistercians also disagreed ; some of them convened in 
Paris and deliberated as to what course to pursue, others dis- 

^^^ (a) Gesta, c. 52. (b) Sigeb., Contin. Acquic, ad an. 1200, in 
MGSS., VI, 436. (c) Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 25. 

^^^ Rad. Coggesh., in Rec, , XVIII, 91. Cf. Davidsohn, Philipp II mtd 
Ingeborg^ 1 05. 

1^9 (a) See above, n. 107b. (b) Theiner, Vet. Mon, Slav. Merid., I, 
48, No. 39 (Potth., 993). 

"0 (a) Ibid., I, 48, No. 62, 63; 58, No. 85 (Potth., 1387); 61, No. 
197, 198 (Potth., 1524); 63, No. 261 (Potth., 1600). (b) Gesta, c. 52. 
(cj Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 20. 

i"Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 20. 

"2 Gesta, c. 52. 

"^Hoveden, Annal. ad an. 1200, in Rec, XVII, 604. 

^^* Davidsohn, Philipp II und Ingeborg, 104. 



APPENDIX 



117 



regarded the sentence from the beginning. '^^ The Abbot of 
S. Germain des Pr^s ^^^ and many others of the clergy refused 
to cease from services.""^ 

So largely was the interdict violated that the pontiff deter- 
mined to have it republished under severer penalties. Ac- 
cordingly, in March he addressed himself to Walter, Arch- 
bishop of Rouen, and the Bishop of Poitiers, ordering them to 
reissue the sentence of interdict on the realm of France, and 
to cause it to be observed by all prelates ; to investigate 
whether any had disregarded the sentence, and to report to 
him. If any should disobey after this new publication, their 
punishment would be very severe ; those who had disobeyed 
up to that time were reserved to the judgment of the pope."^ 
This new publication of the sentence seems to have secured 
observance : Dice to says that France lay under interdict from 
Mid-Lent ,^^^ which in 1200 fell on March 19, seven days after 
the letters to the Archbishop of Rouen and the Bishop of 
Poitiers were issued. Diceto's statement can best be ex- 
plained on the ground that the sentence was but little observed 
before Mid-Lent. 

It was probably the new publication which caused Philip in 
his wrath to go beyond wise bounds. Not content with afflict- 
ing the clergy, he embittered his lay subjects by demanding a 
third of their income and oppressing them with other intoler- 
able exactions. ^'^^ While trying by means of repression at 

^^^Registr. Capitulor. General. Cisterc. Ord., in Bibl. de 1' Arsenal 
(Paris), MS. 926, p. 142. Chap. Gen., 1200, 48 and 51. 

ii^Theiner, Vet, Mon. Slav. Merid., I, 62, No. 221 (Potth., 1551). 

^'^'^ Ibid., I, 61, No. 197, 198 (Potth., 1524). 

i'8 (a) Inn. 0pp., IV, 58 (Potth., 969). (b) See also below, n. 119. 

^^^Diceto, Imagines, in Rec, XVII, 659. ** Terra regis Franciae sub 
interdicto posita est ab archiepiscopo Rothomagensi et episcopo Pictavensi 
de praecepto summi pontificis, . . . et mansit sub interdicto a media 
Quadragesima usque ad festum Sanctae Mariae Magdalenae; ..." 

120(a) Chron. de S. Denis, ad an. 1199, in Rec, XVII, 387. (b) 
Rigord, De Gest. Ph. Aug. ad an. 1199, in i?^c., XVII, 51. (c) Bibl. 
Nat., MS. Fr. 17,264. **I1 [Philip] manda les chevaliers de la terre et 
ses hommes et puist dians le tierch de chou, que leur terre ualoit I an, 
parcoi il pierdi moult leur cuers." 



Il8 THE INTERDICT 

home to defeat the interdict, Philip, feeling the pressure of 
public opinion ,-^^ was doing what he could at Rome to arrive 
at the same end. He complained to the pope of the injustice 
of the interdict on two grounds, namely, that it had been pro- 
mulgated in spite of his properly made appeal, and that it had 
been actually pronounced beyond the confines of his realm. 
These technicalities the Roman pontiff easily brushed aside, 
by explaining that the legate had been commanded to grant 
no appeal, and that the instructions given to Peter of Capua 
had included the provinces of Vienne, Lyons, and Besangon in 
his jurisdiction ; so that the legate was still within his jurisdic- 
tion, even though he was outside of the kingdom of France. 
Moreover, the legate was not the creator of the sentence of 
interdict; he was only its publisher in the place of the pope, 
whose jurisdiction was as wide as Christendom. ^^'^ The pope, 
however, gave Philip some hope of relaxation ; seeing that the 
monarch had remained unmoved thus far, the pope proposed 
to relax the interdict and to excommunicate the king instead, 
saying, *' It is expedient for us, that one man should die for 
the people, and that the whole nation perish not." The plan 
was most welcome to Philip. His first ambassador was unsuc- 
cessful ; nevertheless he sent another requesting that the sug- 
gestion be put into execution.^^- Philip *s eagerness for so 
slight a mitigation furnishes a valuable commentary on the 
strength of the interdict. To him, excommunication, which 
cut him off from church and heaven, seemed preferable to a 
sentence which temporarily deprived his subjects of the minis- 
trations of the church. The former was a personal censure, 
the effectiveness of which depended on his own faith; the 
effectiveness of the latter depended on the faith of others, 
and thus became a strong weapon against him. The pope 
perceived this as clearly as did the king, and did not weaken 
his cause. 

^^^ Gesta, c. 53, ** . . . rex jam non valens ecclesiasticae severitatis 
sustinere rigorem . . . ." 

122 c. 7. X. de offic. legati. i. 30 (Potth., 1074). 
^"Hoveden, Chron. (7?. Ser.), IV, 113. 



APPENDIX Xig 

The effect of the interdict, which caused Philip to plead for 
change of sentence, demands consideration. Though busi- 
ness was not prohibited by the interdict, it is natural to expect 
that a discipline which would affect the entire religious life of 
a mediaeval people would extend its influence to their com- 
mercial activity. Davidsohn has shown that churches and 
monasteries transacted business during this interdict.^^* But 
his evidence was not designed to be comparative, and there- 
fore does not show whether business was decreased. How- 
ever the interdict affected the course of business, its principal 
manifestations were always in religious matters ; in this France 
was no exception. The Count of Ponthieu withdrew to Rouen 
with the sister of Philip Augustus to receive the nuptial bene- 
diction ; ^^^ and the king's son Louis went to Normandy to be 
married to Blanche of Castile. ^^^ Marriages were solemnized 
at graves instead of altars.^^^ The chronicler of S. Amand was 
reminded of the Babylonian Captivity by the various afflictions 
of the church.^^^ The people clamored against their monarch.^^* 
Bishop Hugh of Lincoln, who was traveling on the continent 
at the time, and who celebrated mass every time there was an 
opportunity ,^^^ found himself deprived of that privilege in 
Capetian lands ; and for that reason he diverted his way to 
Citeaux in order to celebrate solemn mass on the Assumption 
of the Virgin, August 15.^^^ Another chronicler tells of the 
sad condition of the church, because no sacraments or services 
except baptism and viaticum were celebrated ; monasteries as 

^** Davidsohn, Philipp II und Ingehorg^ 107-109. 

^2^G6raud, in Bibl. de lEcole des Charles, 2°^® serie, I, 99. 

^2® Hoveden, Annal., in Rec, XVII, 604. 

^'"^ Such is the phrase, in speaking of this interdict, of Hurter, the his- 
torian of Pope Innocent and his times; and, though he mentions no sources, 
he can hardly be talking at random. He means, of course, that marriages 
took place in the churchyard instead of in the church. 

128 Chron. S. Amandi, in Rec, XVIII, 592. 

i29Gesta, c. 53. 

i^^Vita S. Hugonis Lincolniensis, lib. V, c. xv (i?. Ser,), 310, 312, 
326, 328, 329. 
^^^Ibid., 324. 



I20 THE INTERDICT 

well as churches ceased from services. Burial was denied the 
dead; everywhere in the kingdom there was sadness, for 
*'the organs of the church were silent, and the lips of those 
praising the Lord were closed." ^^^ The account of Cogge- 
shall is the most famous : " O what a horrible, what a fright- 
ful sight in every city ! The doors of churches closed, and 
entrance denied to Christians like dogs ; divine offices sus- 
pended, the sacraments of the body and the blood of the Lord 
unoffered ; people no longer coming to the feasts of saints ; 
the dead deprived of the rites of Christian burial, their odors 
infecting the air, and the horrible sight filling the minds of the 
living with terror.'' ^^^ 

Whether these pictures are real or imaginary, there is no 
doubt that Philip suffered no little inconvenience from the in- 
terdict. He complained at Rome of the severity of Peter 
of Capua ; he professed to be willing to be bound by the oath 
of any of his agents, and promised to obey whatever sentence 
either legates or judges delegated from Rome should pro- 
nounce. The response of the pope was that no oath to obey 
would be necessary for the relaxation of the interdict, if Philip 
accepted the judgment already rendered, namely if he dis- 
missed Agnes and received his legitimate wife ; if the king 
submitted to a papal judgment to be given at some later time 
regarding the validity of his marriage to Ingeborg, a pledge 
would be accepted, provided that for the interval the concu- 
bine gave place to the legitimate wife. This reply roused all 
the king's anger, but, since he must choose a way, he sum- 
moned several ecclesiastical and secular princes, and asked 
them for their advice. They counseled him to submit. Turn- 
ing to the Archbishop of Reims he asked ; '' Is it true that the 
pope in a letter to you has spoken of my divorce as a farce 
rather than as a valid affair?" The archbishop responded 
that such was the case, whereupon the king replied : '* Then 

*^2 Robt. Altiss., Chronolog. ad an. 1 199-1200, in Rec.^ XVIII, 263. 
^^^ Rad. Coggesh., Chron. ad an. 1200, in Rec.^ XVIII, 91. 



APPENDIX 



121 



you, who pronounced my divorce, are a fool and an im- 
becile/' ^^* 

Abusive language did not ease the interdict, though it may 
have eased the king's mind. It was still necessary for him to 
get the most favorable terms from Rome. He therefore sent 
to Innocent, requesting him to remove the interdict and to 
try the matter afterwards. Frequent messengers to Rome, 
prayers, and money, were all of no avail with the pope ; ^^^ he 
refused to remove the interdict until it had accomplished its 
purpose. ^^^ Philip was compelled to yield. ^^^ Cardinal Octa- 
vian was sent to France to arrange for a settlement. ^^^ He 
was instructed to exact full and entire satisfaction for the in- 
juries and damages done ecclesiastics who had observed the 
interdict ; to secure the expulsion of Agnes from the realm ; 
to force the king to receive Ingeborg, and to give oath not to 
separate from her without a judgment of the church ; to in- 
duce the king, if possible, to treat Ingeborg with affection ; 
and, if the king insisted on demanding separation, to set a 
hearing for six months later; when these things were done, 
the cardinal was to raise the interdict, reserving to the pope 
the punishment of all disobedient prelates. ^^^ Octavian was 
accompanied by the Cardinal- presbyter of the title of St. 
Prisons ; both were urged to be exceedingly careful and 
patient, and to show no partiality in deciding about the 
marriage of Philip. 

Octavian's coming produced great joy in France. To some 
he seemed a deliverer ; he was met at various stages of his 

^^*Gesta, c. 53. 

^35Rad. Coggesh., Chron., in Rec, XVIII, 91. 

^^^The pope, however, lightened the sentence by granting privileges to 
monasteries. For example: (a) Inn. 0pp., IV, 63, No. 35 (Potth., 1080). 
(b) /did, 64, No. 36 (Potth., 1079). (c) Arch. Nat., L. 236. A privi- 
lege to the Templars. 

^^^ (a) See above, n. 135. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 17. Philip v^^rote, 
** Noverit sanctitas vestra quod nos , . . per vim vestram et per mandatum 
vestrum fecimus . . . quamvis hoc esset contra voluntatem nostram." 

^^^ Potth., 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1 100, iioi, 1 102. 

^^^ Gesta, c. 54. 



122 THE INTERDICT 

journey, especially at Vezelai, by joyous bands of people, who 
blessed him and believed themselves visited by God. Princes 
and nobles welcomed him ; ^^ even Philip joyfully hastened to 
meet him at Sens, received him with humility, and treated 
him with honor. There, in the presence of many,^*^ the king 
made reparation for all insults of the clergy and for their 
material losses ; ^^^ he restored to his favor the Bishops of 
Paris and Soissons.^**^ He agreed to give up Agnes and not 
see her again until the validity of his divorce was determined. 
Another meeting was arranged to take place at St. L^ger-en- 
Iveline , at which it was hoped to accomplish the reconcilia- 
tion. On the seventh of September this meeting occurred. 
The king publicly honored Ingeborg, and by proxy took the 
oath demanded of him by the church. After these things 
were done, the legate solemnly raised the interdict. ^*^ Though 
the story of Ingeborg does not end with the relaxation, it has 
no further purpose here. It is enough to note that Philip, 
despite his professions, did not give Ingeborg his favor for 
many years ; ^^ and that the legate Octavian was most roundly 
dealt with by the pope ,^*^ because he failed to obey his in- 
structions to use all means of securing a reconciliation betw^een 
the king and the queen. 

The relaxation of this interdict, which had lasted thirty 
weeks, produced great joy in France. ^*^ Bells were rung, and 
the greatest felicity prevailed among the people and the clergy. 
It is related that over three hundred were killed in the crowds 
that celebrated the removal of the interdict.^^^ The Bishop of 
Soissons in a report to Rome stated that, just as the grief of 

1*0 Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 13, 15. 
^^ilnn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 15. 

i^^Cartul. de Notre Dame de Paris, I, 59 {Docs. Inedits). 
1*^ Dubois, ^^25^. EccL Paris^ lib. XIV, c. iii, 219. 
^^ For the subsequent history of Ingeborg, see G^raud, in Bibl, de 
r&cole des Chartes^ 2°^^ serie, I. 

i«Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 16 (Potth., 1150). 

i*« (a) Gesta, c. 86. (b) Hoveden, in Rec, XVII, 6o8d. 

i^^Capefigue, Hist, de Ph. Aug., II, 156. 



APPENDIX 



123 



the people over the interdict had been so great as to be in- 
expressible, so their joy and exultation at its removal was the 
more perfect.^*® To this is added the testimony of the Bishop 
of Paris, that the faithful grew more devout in their praises of 
the Creator upon the removal of their distress. ^*^ The legate 
Octavian found it impossible to describe the joy which filled 
the kingdom upon relaxation of the sentence. The people 
blessed the pope and sang his praises, not only for the justice 
shown the unfortunate queen, but also for his mercy in re- 
moving the interdict. ^^ 

Those prelates who had refused to observe the interdict 
were disciplined. The chapter-general of the Cistercians 
ordered that those abbots who had attended the meeting at 
Paris, and had disregarded the interdict, were to be in ** levi 
culpa '' for six days, and for one day of the six they were to 
be put on bread and water ; ^^^ those who had not convened at 
Paris, but had violated the interdict, were for three days to be 
in <'levi culpa ", and were for one day of the three to subsist 
on bread and water. ^^^ The ecclesiastics who had not ob- 
served the interdict from the beginning incurred suspension, 
and their punishment was reserved to the pope. The Arch- 
bishop of Reims, the Bishops of Chartres, Orleans, Meaux, 
Auxerre, Noyon, and Beauvais, and several abbots were com- 
pelled to appear in Rome in person. Several bishops, because 
of age and ill-health, were excused from going to Rome ; ^^" 
these and those abbots who could not go were permitted to 
send deputies. At Rome they all gave a public oath to obey 
what the pontiff should command ; whereupon they were ab- 
solved from suspension, but the pope reserved the right to 

i*sinn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 14. 
^^^Ibid., 13. 
^^Ibid,, 15. 

^^^ Registr. Capitulor. General. Cisterc. Ord. , in BibL de V Arsenal^ MS. 
926, p. 142, Chap. Gen., 1200, 48. 
^^'^ Ibid.^ Chap. Gen., 1200, 51. 

^^ These were probably the Bishops of Laon and T^rouanne. See 
Potth., 1600. 



124 ^^^ INTERDICT 

punish them at his discretion. ^^* The lesser clergy who had 
failed to heed the interdict were not forgotten. Innocent 
gave Philip, Bishop of Beauvais, the power to receive an oath 
of obedience from all abbots, priors, and prelates of his dio- 
cese who were guilty of violation. ^^^ It is probable that simi- 
lar orders went to other bishops. 

Circumstances brought fitting punishment to Hugh Noyers, 
Bishop of Auxerre , w^ho, at the very time that he was trying to 
enforce an episcopal interdict on his own diocese, refused to 
observe the papal interdict on France. The death of Michael, 
Archbishop of Sens, occurred in November, 1199. Later the 
canons of Sens unanimously elected Hugh Noyers to the 
vacancy, and the king gave his consent. But the pope, re- 
membering that Hugh was one of those bishops who not only 
disregarded the interdict, but was also present at that meeting 
which decided, for reasons considered frivolous by Innocent, 
that it ought not to be observed, canceled the election ; for 
the pope regarded it as unfitting that a bishop who had de- 
liberately despised papal orders should be elected by those 
who had kept the interdict as faithfully as had the canons of 
Sens. Hugh wrote to Innocent what seemed to the latter to 
be an accusation rather than an exculpation. He said that, 
on account of papal wrath, he was reduced to the greatest 
confusion and abjection; that he was pointed at with fingers, 
as one who had not fought honorably , but had deserted and 
joined the enemy ; he asserted that he would rather die than 
live thus. He also assured the sovereign pontiff that he did 
not write these things because of any ambition by which he 
hoped to ascend to some higher rank, but because he hoped 
to escape the derision in which he was held. These reasons 
did not prevail with the stern Innocent to acknowledge the 

is^Gesta, c. 57. 

^^^ Mscr. in Beauvais (Cartul. de S. Pierre de Beauvais.)? P- 89, tit. 329. 
**Attendens apostolica sedes .... Dat. Anagnie, nonis Novembris." 
The year is not given, but the letter very probably has to do with the inter- 
dict of 1200. 



APPENDIX 125 

election; he did, however, grant the petitioner absolution 
from suspension. ^^^ William of Dijon had a similar experi- 
ence. He was at first influenced by threats to disregard the 
interdict, but after a time obeyed the mandate of the church. ^^^ 
Later he was elected to the Archbishopric of Bourges, The 
circumstances were so much like those of Hugh Noyers that 
Innocent realized the danger of being accused of partiality, 
should he agree to the election. There seemed to him, how- 
ever, to be a distinction between those who had erred from 
contempt and those who had erred from ignorance ; and on 
this ground he decided to confer on William the pallium, pro- 
vided that he purge himself by oath of his contempt, that he 
obey whatever the pope enjoin for those faults which grew 
out of ignorance, and that he issue letters patent to that 
effect. ^^® The Bishop of Arras, on the contrary, was particu- 
larly faithful in observing the interdict, ^^^ and it was probably 
for this reason that the pope favored him with privileges in 
the bull which begins: ^^ Since recently, in the day of the 
battle for the house of the Lord, you opposed yourself like an 
impregnable wall against a charge from without, so much the 
more willingly do we show you apostolic favor, as we have in 
this affair experienced your obedience and steadfastness.'' ^^^ 
58 Brittany^ 1200. 

The only notice of this interdict is in a papal letter of May 
12, 1200, in which the pontiff answered the question whether 
certain things might be done ' ' during the interdict laid on the 
whole of Brittany ". The Abbe Chauffier in an article on this 
'^ Lettre in^dite d' Innocent III " is of the opinion that this in- 
terdict of 1200 had no connection with that of France, and 
surmises that it was laid because the clergy of Dol refused to 

156 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 20. (b^ Gesta, c. 56. 
i^"* Hist. Archiepisc. Bituricensiuni 5 in Labbe, Nova Bibl., II (1657), 
99ff. 

158 Inn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 43 (Potth., 1249). 

159 Andrens. Chron., cited by Hurter, Innocenz III, I, 381, n. 188, 
i^nnn. Ill, Epp., Ill, 25, 



126 THE INTERDICT 

accept a papal order of June, 1199, subjecting their diocese 
to the Archbishop of Tours. ^^^ He suggests that some of the 
prelates of Brittany probably desired to execute this sentence 
in all of its details, which got them into difficulties so serious 
that they were obliged to appeal to Rome for explanations ; 
and that the above-mentioned letter is the response to their 
inquiry. ^^^ It was asked whether viaticum, extreme unction, 
and burial of the dead were to be allowed for clerks and lay- 
men ; whether divine offices could be celebrated in conventual 
churches with voices subdued and doors closed, interdicted 
persons being excluded ; and whether penance was to be as- 
signed to those assuming the cross or visiting the shrines of 
saints. The pope answered that viaticum was granted to the 
truly penitent, and that he conceded as a special favor that 
clerks who had observed the interdict might be buried in the 
cemetery of the church in silence, without solemnity and the 
sound of bells. In conventual churches, clerks by twos and 
threes might recite, not chant, canonical hours, with doors 
closed and voice so subdued as not to be heard outside, inter- 
dicted persons being excluded. Regulars were given their 
usual privileges. Crusaders and other pilgrims were allowed 
to have confession when they demanded it. This answer was 
clearly not the end of the matter, for on December 17, 1201, 
Arthur, Duke of Brittany, agreed to execute the papal sen- 
tence subjecting Dol to Tours. But whether even this made 
an end of the long struggle of the Bretons to be ecclesiastically 
independent of France is not yet surely known : and the dura- 
tion of the interdict must remain likewise uncertain. 
59 Le Mans, 1200-1203 - 

An interdict was laid on the city of Le Mans, either by its 
bishop or by the dean or chapter, because of some excesses of 

161 YVendover, Flor. Hist, ad an. 1199 {R. Ser,), I, 291. 

182 (a) BidL de V Rcole des Chartes, XXXIII, 595-605. (b) It may be 
added that the title of this article is misleading, for the substance of this 
papal letter, with the exception of the reference to the interdict of Brittany, 
has long since been published in the Corpus juris canonici : C. Ii, X, 
de poenit. 5. 38 (Potth., $042). 



APPENDIX 127 

the secular power. The canons of St. Peter de Curia disre- 
garded the sentence , and, though all others ceased from ser- 
vices, they boldly rang their bells and performed ecclesiastical 
rites with wide-open doors for all except excommunicated and 
interdicted persons. The matter being brought to the notice 
of Octavian, who acted as legate in those parts from the 
year 1200, he decided against the canons of St. Peter. After- 
wards ( 1 204-1 205) on account of trouble with political 
powers, the city was again interdicted, and again the canons, 
in spite of notice to cease, celebrated with unusual solemnity. 
This time the difference was carried to Rome, where the pro- 
curator of the disobedient canons justified their action by 
pleading the prescriptive independence of the church of St. 
Peter de Curia, which exempted it from interdicts. The pon- 
tiff regarded this plea as dangerous to the discipline of the 
church, declared the privilege invalid, and ordered the canons 
to observe the interdict strictly, as far as they were not ex- 
empted by privileges ordinarily extended in time of interdict. 
The subsequent history of the interdict is unknown. ^^^ 
60 La7tds of Nicolas de Rumigny, 12 00-1203, 

Nicolas de Rumigny molested the canons of Reims in vari- 
ous ways, his prime offence being the seizure of their forest 
lands. After being repeatedly and uselessly warned by Wil- 
liam, Archbishop of Reims, he was finally excommunicated, 
and his household and lands were put under interdict at the 
request of the chapter. In order to make the sentence effec- 
tive, all priests were commanded to leave the district affected, 
the Hospitalers were forbidden to celebrate services, an 
ambulatory interdict was to follow Nicolas in his movements, 
and the sentence was confirmed by the legate Octavian some- 
time after August, 1200.^" The Hospitalers refused to observe 

i^Inn. Ill, Epp., VIII, 213, 212 (Potth., 2675, 2679). 

^^Varin, Arch, Adm, de Reims, I, ii, 437-438. The mention of the 
legate helps to fix the date. Octavian was dispatched to France in July, 
1200 (Potth., 1094, 1 102), and met the king at Sens on August 27. On 
September 7, he was at St. L^ger-en-Iveline, where he relaxed the inter- 



128 THE INTERDICT 

the sentence, on which account the canons complained of 
them at Rome, and on January 21, 1201, Innocent rebuked 
them and ordered them not to go beyond their privileges. ^^^ 
Nicolas made peace ^^^ with the church in February of 1203, 
and gave a charter for the reparation of damage done. The 
charter does not mention the interdict, but in the absence of 
any other evidence it is probable that the interdict was relaxed 
at that time. 
6i Lands of Rogei- de Rozoy^ 1 200-1203. 

In the papal letter of January, 1201, not only the lands of 
Nicolas '*de Ruminiaco " but those of Roger **de Roseto'' 
(Rozoy-sur-Serre) are said to be under interdict. ^^^ 
62 Lands of Nicolas de Rozoy, I200?-I2ii^^^ 

Nicolas de Rozoy was a younger brother of Roger. As he 
tells us, at his submission, that he has 'Mong" been under 
excommunication by the church of Reims and his lands under 
interdict for wrongs to the canons, it is not impossible that he 

diet on France {Bibl. de V Ecole des Chartes, 2™® s^rie, I, 95-98). It was 
no doubt after that time that he confirmed the sentence of the Archbishop 
of Reims. This cannot have been late in 1200, for in January, 1201, upon 
complaint from Reims, Innocent commanded the Hospitalers to observe 
the interdict. 

^^^ Varin, Arch. Adm. de Reims, I, ii, 435 (Potth., 1248). Varin gives 
the year in the margin as 1200; but this is a palpable error in reckoning. 

^^^The charter is printed in Varin, Arch, Adm, de Reims, I, ii, 450. 
During the year 120 1, Nicolas wrote a letter to the canons to justify himself 
for hanging a man, and offered amends (Varin, Arch. Adm. de Reims, I, 
ii, 448, 449); but this can hardly be taken as a submission, which pro- 
duced relaxation of the interdict; for in the charter of 1203 Nicolas men- 
tions the hanging among the things for which he is making amends. 

16' (a) Inn. 0pp., IV, 57, No. 28 (Potth., 1248). (b) From a charter 
of Roger de Roseto, 1205 (Varin, Arch, Adm, de Rei??is, I, ii, 459, 454), 
it appears that Roger was in controversy with the cathedral chapter at 
Reims, the same with which Nicolas of Rumigny had been in disagreement 
[ibid., 450). Rigordus relates that in 1201 King Philip, who, in Dec, 
1 20 1, took under his express protection the canons of Reims (Varin, Arch, 
Adm. de Reims, I, ii, p. 448; Delisle, Cat. des actes de Ph. Aug., No. 
691), intended to attack Roger de Roseto for harming the church, where- 
upon Roger made his submission and agreed to make reparation. [Rec, 
XVII, 54; cf, Guill. Armor., Philippis, I, in Rec, XVII, 133-134.) 

lesYarin, Arch, Adm. de Reims, I, ii, 480; cf, ibid., i, 387-391. The 
date of the charter is January, 121 1, 



APPENDIX 129 

was included in the same interdict with Roger ; and both may 
have been laid under interdict at the same time as Nicholas 
de Rumigny. 

63 St. Omer^ about 1201. 

The citizens of St. Omer had a dispute with the Abbey of 
St. Bertin regarding some marsh-lands. In 1198 Innocent 
appointed commissioners to settle the quarrel, and a few 
months later he urged the burgesses to give the abbey satis- 
faction. The efforts of the papal agents were apparently 
futile, for in August, 1200, a confirmation of the Count of 
Flanders made known that Arnoul, steward of T^rouanne, and 
fifty other persons who had been chosen to terminate the dif- 
ference between the abbey and the citizens, had divided the 
disputed meadows between the two parties. ^^^ This, however, 
did not settle the matter, and the resistance of the citizens 
brought upon them a sentence of *' excommunication" laid on 
papal authority by the Bishop and Archdeacon of Arras. The 
citizens paid no heed to the sentence, whereupon orders were 
issued by the curia to the Dean and the Archdeacon of Amiens 
to cause the sentence to be inviolably observed until sufficient 
satisfaction was made.^"^ The surviving evidence leads one to 
believe that this order was also fruitless. In 1202 the Count 
of Flanders proposed to go to the Holy Land, whereupon his 
bailiffs were warned by the curia to allow no harm to come to 
the abbey. The Count himself secured from the abbey a 
promise to postpone the settlement of the quarrel for three 
years until his return from Jerusalem. ^"^^ Meantime St. Omer 
lay under interdict ; when the sentence was laid or by whom 
is nowhere stated. Indeed the only indisputable reference to 
interdict throughout the whole disagreement is contained in a 
communication of Innocent to the abbots of Blagny and 

^^*Haigner^, Les chartes de S, Bertin, I, 185, No. 425, 427; 188, 
No. 433. 

170 Inn. 0pp., IV, 80 (Potth., 1422). 

I'^i Haigner^, Zes chartes^ I, 2CO, No. 456, 457, 



I30 THE INTERDICT 

Auchy and the prior of Hesdin, which states that, though the 
citizens were excommunicated and the town was interdicted 
on papal authority, the canons of St. Omer in the diocese of 
T^rouanne celebrated services in the presence of excommuni- 
cates. Every attempt to settle failed; the dispute dragged 
on with varying hostility until 1247 or 1248, when the Count 
of Artois put an enforced end to it by recognizing the claims 
of the citizens in part, and obliging the abbey to accept the 
terms.^^^ What became of the interdict is not known ; it may 
have continued to the final settlement, or may have been re- 
moved long before, as far as any existing evidence goes. 
Probably the interdict went hand in hand with the excom- 
munication, which, already twice issued, was republished in 
February, 1203.^'^^ A papal letter of September, 1204, shows 
that at some previous time the ecclesiastics were forced by the 
Count of Namur ^^^ and the bailiffs of the Count of Flanders to 
relax the excommunication temporarily. ^"^^ 

64 Limoges^ 1 202-1 203. 

In the course of the continental wars of Henry II and his 
sons the walls of Limoges had been damaged. The citizens 
attempted to fix the burden of building and repairing the walls 
and moats upon the monks of S. Martial. The abbot, Hugh 
de Brosse, supported by the bishop, firmly opposed the de- 
mand made upon the monastery and declared himself ready to 
have the matter heard in court. The burgesses thereupon re- 
sorted to violence ; they seized and damaged the property of the 
monks and inflicted much harm and injury upon them. Some- 
time before October 6 , 1202 , the bishop put an interdict on the 
city, and, when some of the clergy disregarded the sentence, he 

1^2 (a) Giry, Hist, de la Ville de St, Omer, 138, n. 3; 139. Cf. Rec. 
XIX, 470. (b) Haigner^, Les Chartes de S. Bertifiy I, 199-200, No. 455. 

^"^^ Ibid.y 204, No. 465. 

'^'*The Count of Namur was threatened with interdict in April, 1204; 
perhaps this gave him sympathy for the burgesses of St. Omer and caused 
him to interfere. Inn. Ill, Epp., VII, 45, 

175 7?^^., XIX, 470. 



APPENDIX 131 

condemned them to suspension and excommunication. ^"^^ Later 
Innocent III instructed the Archbishop of Bourges and the 
Bishop of Cahors, and in another letter the Archbishop of 
Bourges and his suffragan bishops, to confirm the sentence of 
the Bishop of Limoges, if lawfully laid, and to force its ob- 
servance in the whole province of Bourges. ^^"^ This was done 
and civil war raged in the city ; the bishop ordered a daily 
renewal of his malediction upon the consuls and the disobe- 
dient priests. Garments were not given the poor that year on 
Maundy Thursday, but the price of these was distributed to 
many paupers. ^^^*^ The burgesses appealed to Rome against 
the sentence of the Archbishop of Bourges, but the pope de- 
cided against them '"^"^ and they went to worse excesses than 
before, becoming so violent that the abbot was obliged to 
leave the city.^"^^ It was even preached in churches that ex- 
communicates need not fear to perform ecclesiastical ministra- 
tions. The citizens expelled the monks of S. Martial, took 
their remaining property, and punished by fines matrons and 
other persons who from conscientious scruples absented them- 
selves from services held by excommunicated priests, or who 
refused to receive the host from their hands on Easter-day. 

^"^^ (a) The date for this interdict is taken from the statement of Varia 
Chron. Fragment, ad an. 1202, that in the monastery of St. Salvator there 
were no services from the feast of St. Pardulphus, October 6th, to July 22nd. 
The latter date meets very well the requirements of the papal letter and the 
charter of the Bishop of Limoges. The interdict was in force March 30 
(Chron. B. Iterii, in Dupl^s-Agier, Chroniq. de S.Martial de Limoges^ p. 
68); and on Easter, April 4 (Epp., VI, 97). The former date is made 
somewhat doubtful by the fact that from the Varia Chron, Frag, the cap- 
ture of the Viscount of Limoges seems to occur during the interdict; and, 
unless more than one viscount was captured, that occurrence took place 
before September 7, 1202 {Rot. Pat.^ I, i, 18). It is therefore possible 
that the interdict began before October 6. (b) Lasteyrie, VAbbaye de S, 
Martial de Limoges^ 121. Just when this damage was done is hardly as-, 
certainable. War was in progress in the autumn of 1202, for about Sep- 
tember of that year the Viscount of Limoges was captured by the consuls 
of the city, who adhered to John; Rot. Pat., I, i, 18. (c) Rec, XVIII, 
226, n. b. (d) Varia Chron, Fragment, ad an. 1202, in Duplds-Agier, 
Chroniq., 192-193. From this source the cessation seems to have been 
voluntary. 

i"Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 97 (Potth., 1934). 

^"^^ Lasteyrie, D Abbaye de S. Ma^'tial de Limoges^ 114. 



132 THE INTERDICT 

On June 8, 1203, the pope instructed the Archbishop of 
Bourges and the Bishop of Cahors that, if the disobedient 
clerks did not yield obedience within a month, they should be 
deprived of their benefices ; and if that did not accomplish its 
purpose they should be degraded. ^^^ This papal order had 
speedy effect, for the burgesses and monks came to an agree- 
ment attested by the bishop, in which the former made repa- 
ration for damage done, and agreed thereafter to resort to 
judicial procedure in similar cases /^ Though nothing was 
said of the interdict, it was probably removed at the same time. 
65 York and Beverly^ 1200-1201, 

When John went to the continent in 1200, he ordered 
Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, to attend him. The arch- 
bishop refused and also hindered John's emissaries from col- 
lecting a carucage in the province of York. In addition he 
laid the whole province of York under an interdict. For these 
reasons John ordered him to be deprived of his possessions. 
Geoffrey retaliated by excommunicating the king's partisans ; 
and at the same time laid an interdict on the town of 
Beverly, the inhabitants of which had broken into the arch- 
bishop's park.^^^ Wishing to avoid serious difficulty, John or- 
dered the archbishop's estates restored on condition that the 
archbishop should answer for his offence in the king's court, 
and pay three thousand marks which he owed King Richard. 
A settlement did not immediately follow ; indeed the events of 
John's visit at Beverly in January, 1201, threatened complete 
estrangement. The canons of Beverly wished to receive the 
king with a procession and the sound of bells, but this was 
forbidden them. The king was entertained by an excommu- 
nicate. ^^^ Though such treatment angered the king, it did not 
prevent a settlement; this came by Mid-Lent of 1201, when 

i^^Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 97 (PoUh., 1934J. 
'^^ Rec. yXVlll, 226, n. b. 
isiHoveden, {R. Ser.), IV, 139-140. 
''^UHd,y 156. 



APPENDIX 133 

the king and archbishop met at York and the latter purchased 
favor by paying a fine. In May, John restored to his brother 
the properties in return for a promise of a money payment. 
Though not mentioned, the interdicts were, no doubt, relaxed 
at that time.^^ 

66 Cremona^ 1201^ and 1 203-1 204, 

The citizens of Cremona were put under interdict because 
they vexed their bishop and clergy with tallages, and otherwise 
oppressed them.. The sentence is called an excommunication 
in one bull, but that it was an interdict appears from a letter 
of November, 1201, to the Bishop of Cremona which granted 
that he might celebrate ecclesiastical offices because he had 
taken the cross, notwithstanding the interdict under which his 
city was laboring. ^^- This interdict is perhaps the same as 
that of 1 203-1 204, though no positive proof of connection be- 
tween the two has been found. The interdict existing in 1203 
grew out of a disagreement between the citizens of Cremona 
and the monks of St. Sixtus, and was laid by the Bishop of 
Modena. The sentence was not observed by all priests ; some 
of them even conducted public services. In February, 1203, 
Innocent ordered the Bishop of Modena to renew the sentence 
of interdict, to suspend all clerks who violated it, to deprive 
them of their livings, and to force them to appear before the 
pope. In 1204 tb^ contending parties came to an agreement 
in Innocent's presence, and he ordered the Bishop of Parma 
to relax the sentence.-^ 

67 Genoa ^ about 1202. 

When this interdict was laid cannot be determined ; it prob- 

^^ (a) Ibid.^ 139--140, 157, 163. (b) Stubbs, preface to Hoveden, IV. 
(c) Wendover, Flor. Hist, ad an. 1200 {R, Ser.), I, 301. (d) Prynne's 
Records, II, 230-231. 

^^Theiner, Vei. Mon, Slav, Merid., I, 61, No. 200 (Potth., 1526), 
No. 201 (Pottb., 1527). 

^85 (a) Inn. III,Epp.,VI, 13 (Potth., 1846); VIII, 163 (Potth., 2338) ; 
X, 143 (Potth., 3205). (b) The trouble v/as not permanently ended. II 
the comment to the letter printed in Pflugk-Harttung, Iter Italicum^ 516- 
517, may be believed, the same dispute was alive in 1226. 



134 



THE INTERDICT 



ably grew out of a dispute between Archbishop Boniface and 
the canons of Genoa, which was settled on May 30, 1201, by 
commissioners of Innocent III. The interdict may have been 
removed at the same time j it certainly was removed sometime 
before November, 1202. The revenues of the chapter in 
Genoa were so considerably diminished by the interdict that 
it was necessary to adopt remedial measures ; and it was there- 
fore determined that any prebends which fell vacant should 
not be reassigned, and that the income derived from them 
should be applied to the common use. Later four prebends 
became vacant, and the archbishop assigned one of them on 
the ground of prescriptive right. After the interdict was re- 
laxed the canons challenged the act of the archbishop and car- 
ried the matter to Rome. Innocent ruled that several of the 
prebends had been vacant so long that the right of appoint- 
ment belonged to him rather than to the chapter of the arch- 
bishop. These circumstances give some idea of the duration 
of an otherwise obscure interdict. ^'^^ 
68 Armenia y 1203 {1204). 

The interdict of Armenia is an episode in the quarrels of 
the crusaders. It resulted from a dispute between Leo of 
Armenia and Boemund of Antioch over the possession of An- 
tioch. Boemund III of Antioch had two sons, Raymond III 
and Boemund of Antioch. Raymond married the sister of 
Leo, King of Armenia, and by her had a son, Rupino, whom 
he acknowledged to be his rightful successor. When Ray- 
mond died, about 1200, his brother Boemund disputed 
Rupino*s claim and Leo supported his nephew Rupino. ^^^ In 

^^(a) This interdict probably grew out of the dispute between Arch- 
bishop Boniface and the canons of Genoa, which was settled in 1201, May 
30, by commissioners of Innocent III. Ughelli, li. Sacra, IV, col. 881- 
882. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., V, 123 (Potth., 1780). 

*^^ (a) I have not been able to verify my belief that this interdict occurred 
in 1203. That it was in 1203 or 1204 is clear from the following. The 
legates attested letters at Rome in March, 1202 (Potth., 1644). They were 
sent to the East in the same year (see below, n. 189). They cannot have 
reached the Holy Land early enough to have had their quarrel with Leo of 
Armenia and to have made peace by September, 1202. This makes it very 



APPENDIX 



135 



1201^ Leo subjected himself to Rome and sought the privilege 
that no one excommunicate him or interdict his lands without 
permission from Rome.-^ Innocent granted this privilege. 
When the dispute in the East became serious, Innocent sent 
two legates, SofEridus, Cardinal-presbyter of the title of St. 
Praxedis, and Peter, Cardinal-presbyter of the title of St. 
Marcellus, to secure peace. ^^ The quarrel of the princes was 
aggravated when the Templars gave their support to Boemund. 
The King of Armenia in revenge confiscated their property. 
The legates vainly tried to secure an agreement between the 
king and the Templars. One of them, Peter, finally called a 
council; and, though the Catholicus of the Armenians and the 
Bishop of Antioch were absent, laid an interdict on Leo's 
lands, in spite of his appeal to Rome made on the ground of 
the privilege previously granted. ^^^ The prelates of Armenia 
held a convention, and decided that the sentence need not be 
observed because the Catholicus had not been present when 
the sentence was laid, and had therefore not given his assent.^^^ 
The king complained of the legates ^^^ and requested their 
recall, which came later. In the meantime a convention was 
held at Acre in September, 1203 or 1204, and there the king 
agreed to abide by the award of the legates ; whereupon peace 
was made. It is likely that the interdict, which had probably 
never been observed, was removed at the same time.^^ 

probable that the interdict fell in a later year. It must have been before 
1205, for by March of 1205 the legates had already left Palestine (see 
below, n. 192). Soffridus again attested letters in Rome, May, 1206 
(Potth., 2767); Peter, in March, 1207 (Potth., 3064). (b) Inn. Ill, 
Epp., II, 252, 253. (c) Gesta, cm. (d) Robt. Altiss., Chronolog. ad 
an. 1204, in Rec.^ XVIII, 272. 

188 Inn. Ill, Epp., V, 43, 44 (Potth., 1689). 

i^They were sent about 1202. Inn. Ill, Epp., V, 48. 

1^^ Called excommunication. 

!»• Gesta, c. 116, or Inn. Ill, Epp., VIII, 119. 

192 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., VIII, i (Potth., 2429). (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., 
VII, 223; VIII, 126. From these letters it appears that the legates had 
left the Holy Land before March, 1205. (c) Cf, Migne, Pat. Lat., 214, 
clix, n. 77. 

1^ (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., VIII, 119, 120. (b) Gesta, c. 118. Cf. Gesta, 
c. 109-119. (c) Wilkins, Gesch. d. Kreuzzils^e.W, i6fi. fd^ Notes to 
Chronique du ConnHable Sempad^ Vol. II* 



136 THE INTERDICT 

69 Lands of the murderers of the Bishop of Wurzburg^ 1203. 
Conrad, Bishop of Wlirzburg, who had transferred himself 

from Hildesheim without papal consent, was killed December 
6, 1202. In January of the next year, Innocent wrote to the 
prelates of Germany instructing them to excommunicate the 
murderers, to put their lands and those of their adherents 
under interdict, and to interdict any place to which they 
should come, for the time they remained there. This sentence 
seems to have brought the murderers to quick submission, for 
by April they had appeared in Rome to do penance so severe 
that some one has said a death sentence was preferable.^^* 
One of the conditions of their shriving was that neither they 
nor their heirs were ever to acquire ecclesiastical benefices 
without obtaining special permission from Rome. It was de- 
creed that, if any fief were ever obtained contrary to the pro- 
visions above set forth, the diocese in which it lay should be 
under interdict until the fief was surrendered or the inhabi- 
tants of the diocese removed the offence. The interdict on 
the lands of the murderers was raised after they submitted. ^^^ 

70 Lands of the Counts of Ge Idem, Julie h^ Hochstaden, Berg, 

and Altena, i20j-i2oy. 
The following cases of interdict were attempts to strengthen 
the papal cause in the quarrels between the Guelfs and 
Ghibellines. During the struggle between Otto and Philip of 
Suabia, AdoH, Archbishop of Cologne, was deposed by Inno- 
cent. In the fall of 1205 the Counts of Geldem, Jiilich, 
Hochstaden, Berg, and Altena were excommunicated and 
their lands were interdicted by papal agents, because of their 
adherence to the deposed archbishop, and because of their 

19* (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., V, 155 (Potth., 1813); 51 (Potth., 1886); VI, 
113 (Potth., 1958). (b) Winkelmann, /'>^e7z)>/ v. Schwaben^ I, 267-271. 

19^ (a) Boehmer, Reg. imp,. No. 5834 (April 18, 1203). (b) The same 
bull which relates the subnaission of the murderers ordered excommunica- 
tion and interdict to be used against all unrepentant accomplices until they 
made their purgation; and, if they refused to submit, they were to be fol- 
lowed by an ambulatory interdict. Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 113 (Potth., 1958). 



APPENDIX 137 

attack on the churches of Cologne. The sentence was re- 
moved on Easter, 1206. Many clerks observed the sentence, 
though they were forced to beg; others, overcome by want, 
celebrated services. ^^* The Dean and the Prior of Cologne 
asked Innocent how to punish the clerks, monks, and nuns 
who had violated the interdict and still continued to do so, 
though they had been excommunicated. On May 15, 1207, 
Innocent replied that clerks guilty of violation of interdict 
were to lose their benefices ; and that monks and nuns should 
be sent to monasteries with a more rigid discipline. ^^' After 
the interdict, Innocent remitted to their superiors for judgment 
several persons who had, though excommunicated, held ser- 
vices during the interdict. ^^® The sentence was undoubtedly 
relaxed in 1207, when peace was made between Philip of 
Suabia and Otto, and the deposed archbishop surrendered his 
claims. ^^ 
71 Bremen^ 1208-1211 and 1211-1216. 

In November, 1207, Hartwig, Archbishop of Bremen, died. 
Philip of Suabia had pledged himself to help Waldemar, Bishop 
of Schleswig, to secure his election to the archbishopric of 
Bremen, and their plan easily carried. But when Waldemar 
went to Rome to secure papal confirmation, at first he was 
put off, and finally was refused. Thereupon, though the pope 
had ordered him not to depart without permission, he secretly 
left Rome and occupied the new see on his own authority, 
with the joyful assent of the people of Bremen. ^^ For this 
high-handed procedure Waldemar was excommunicated, but 
he prevented the publication of the bull by excluding it from 

^^« (a) Annal. Colon, max., 1205, in MGSS., XVII, 821. Cf. Potth., 
2716. (b) Chron. Regia Coloniensis Cont., I, ad an. 1 206-1 207, in 
MGSS,,1^XIY, 12-13. 

i»'(a) Inn. Ill, Epp. X, 62 (Potth., 3101). (b) Cf, Winkelmann, 
Philipp V, Sckwabeuy I, 393 and notes. 

198 MS. in Berlin (Potth., 3363). 

199 Winkelmann, Philipp v. Sckwaben, I, 397. 

200 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., X, 209 (Potth., 3299). (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., X, 
310 (Potth., 3300). (c) Inn. Ill, Epp., XI, 10 (Potth., 3354). 



138 THE INTERDICT 

the city ; finally, it was given legal validity by being secretly 
deposited on the altar during mass. It was futile, however, 
and an interdict was kid on the city between April and De- 
cember of 1208,^^- and was renewed July 2, 1209. Nothing 
more is heard of this interdict. Perhaps it also was delayed 
by allowing no knowledge of it to reach the city.^^^ After the 
death of Philip of Suabia, Waldemar for a time lost his power 
and made his submission at Rome , and it seems probable that 
the interdict was then relaxed. At any rate, when in 12 11 
Otto IV turned against the papacy, and Waldemar, whose 
fortunes now rose, reentered Bremen, another ^^ interdict was 

^^^ It is impossible to do more than approximate the date of the interdict. 
Innocent had, it seems, by February 21, 1208, determined to excommuni- 
cate Waldemar, if the date assigned (by Potthast, Reg,^ 3299) to the pope's 
letter to Philip of Suabia's queen, Mary, urging her to cause Philip to 
avoid Waldemar as an excommunicate, may be trusted. This is supported 
by the uncertain evidence of two other undated bulls, fixed by Potthast in 
February, 1208 {Reg,., 330o), and March, 1208 {Reg.', 3354), respectively. 
The first of these, addressed to the bishop-elect of Wiirzburg, instructs 
him to announce Waldemar excommunicated. The second is addressed to 
the King of Denmark, and notifies him of the excommunication and of the 
instructions given many prelates to publish the sentence. No letters to 
prelates containing such instructions are extant. The evidence of these 
bulls is that the excommunication was published as soon as the letters, 
issued sometime in February, 1208, could reach Germany. This was pos- 
sibly the case. Nevertheless, in a bull dated November 4, 1208 (Epp., 
XI, 173; Potth., 3530), it is said that the Archbishop of Magdeburg, his 
suffragan bishops, those of the see of Bremen, and the Bishops of Mllnster 
and Osnabriick, had been ordered to command Waldemar to go to Rome, 
and if he failed to comply within one month to anathematize him. 
Another bull, dated July 2, 1209 (Epp., XII, 63; Potth., 3760), agrees 
almost verbally, in the part here considered, with that of November, 1208. 
It is not impossible that these were the instructions given in February, 
1208, though they may be of later date and may be regarded as a renewal 
of the excommunication formerly issued. The importance of this for the 
present purpose is that the letter of November, 1208, states that the prel- 
ates bad been instructed not only to anathematize W^aldemar if he refused 
to depart for Rome, but also to interdict any city, fortress, or commune 
which adhered to him. Bremen adhered to Waldemar, and, if the papal 
orders were executed, the city must have been interdicted. From these 
facts it seems clear that the interdict was pronounced by December of 1208 
at latest, and may have been pronounced as early as April of the same year. 

^' (a) Arnold. Lubec, lib. VII, c. 10 and c. 19, in MGSS,, XXI. (b) 
Winkelmann, Philipp v. Schwaben^ II, 268. 

2^* It may be that the former interdict had been suspended. 



APPENDIX X3Q 

laid upon the city.'^^ The people bore the cessation of ser- 
vices with great equanimity, for, being friendly to Otto, their 
trade with England prospered. ^^ No other information re- 
garding the interdict is forthcoming. Waldem.ar's fall was 
assured by the defeat of Otto at Bouvines (i2i4),and in 
12 16 he was expelled from Bremen. ^^ It is hardly possible 
that the interdict lasted after the citizens expelled Waldemar.^^ 

72 Capua, 1 2 10, 

The canons of Capua celebrated services in the presence of 
the Emperor Otto, and for this reason their city was put under 
an interdict.^^^ 

73 Naples, about 121 1, 

The interdict of Naples was laid by the archbishop of the 
city, because the citizens adhered to the excommunicated 
emperor. Some questioned whether the papal excommunica- 
tion of the emperor really gave any prelate authority to employ 
interdict also, and the Archbishop of Naples put the question 
before Innocent. The reply was that the Neapolitans by aid- 
ing the emperor had justly incurred the loss of spiritual minis- 
trations, and it was ordered that the sentence remain in force 
until the fault was amended. Not even the dying were to be 
allowed penance, unless they swore to obey the commands of 
the church, and abjured the emperor, and even then they 
might not have canonical burial. ^^ 



^^Annal. Stadenses ad an. 121 1, in MGSS.^ XVI, 355. 

^ Bremer Urk. B., I, 127. Cited from Winkelmann, II, 386. 

^^^AnnaU Stadenses ad an. 121 7, etc. 

20' (a) Cf. Dehio, *'Waldemar, Bischof von Schleswig," in the J/tsL 
Zeitschr,^ XXX (1873), 222-238. (b) Winkelmann, II, 460. 

^^(a) Ryccardus de S. Germ., Chron. ad an. 1211, in MGSS., XIX, 
334. (b) Ryccardus {MGSS.y XIX, 338) states that at the Lateran Coun- 
cil of 1 21 5 the Milanese were not allowed to speak for the Emperor Otto, 
since they, being his adherents, were Hke him excommunicated. No other 
source has been found to shed light on this sentence. If the whole city 
was under discipHne, the sentence implied was no doubt an interdict. 

209(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., XIV, 74 (Potth., 4274). (b) Cf, Hurter, Inno^ 
cenz III, II, 367. 



I40 THE INTERDICT 

74 Liege ^ iigS— February 14, iigg. 

This case has no connection with the struggle between 
Philip of Suabia and Otto IV. '^^ 

75 Brabant, about 1212 {1214), Liege, 12 12-12 ij. Lands 

of Henry of Brabant {1212-1214). 

Henry, Duke of Brabant, was excommunicated and his land 
was interdicted by the Archbishop of Mainz, because of his 
adherence to Emperor Otto. He was also under an interdict 
resulting from his maltreatment of the Guelf bishop, Hugh of 
Liege; in May, 12 12, the city of Liege was besieged by the 
Duke of Brabant and was captured and plundered by his 
army. Thereupon a council of all the prelates of the diocese 
of Liege, held at Huy,^^^ determined that services should be 
suspended, that the crucifix and the relics of the saints should 
be encircled with thorns and thrown prostrate in every church 
of the whole diocese , and that on all feast-days the sentence 
of excommunication should be renewed against the duke.^^^ 
For nearly eighteen months, the crucifix and the relics of St. 
Dodart and others lay on the floor of the cathedral. After 
repeating the regular hours the canons of St. Gilles daily 
entered the church, and at the close of the mass one of the 
priests, clothed in the vestments of his office and followed by 
the whole clergy, led the way to the centre of the cathedral, 
where all prostrated themselves and cried : ** Look down, O 
Lord, from thy holy habitation.'* ^^^ 

To these two interdicts of Henry a third was added. It 
happened that, at a lawsuit presided over by papal commis- 
sioners, one of the duke's servants struck a clerk so hard as to 

'^^Reineri Annales, in MGSS.^XVl^ 654-655. Citizens buried their 
dead without solemnities; but those who swore never thereafter to contra- 
vene ecclesiastical liberty were not deprived of viaticum. 

211 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 56 (Potth., 4736). (b) Chron. Leod., in 
I^ec, XVIII, 622-623. Cf, Winkelmann, Philipp v, Schwaben, II, 304. 

212 Aegidius Aureavall., Gest. Pont. Leod. ad an. 1212, in jI/6^55. , XXV, 
118. 

^i^Reineri Annal. ad an. 1212, in MGSS., XVI, 664, n. 24. 



APPENDIX 141 

draw blood; on account of this the commissioners excom- 
municated the duke and interdicted his lands, though he was 
absent and ignorant of the whole affair. The trebly inter- 
dicted duke's fortunes declined with those of the excommuni- 
cated emperor, who could afford him no help equal to that 
which Hugh obtained from France and Flanders. Henry 
therefore deprived Hugh of French help by himself becoming 
an ally of Philip Augustus, who at that time was on good terms 
with Innocent IH ; a part of their agreement was that Henry 
should marry a daughter of Philip. Henry then made appli- 
cation to the pope , saying that he was ready to obey him and 
to satisfy the Bishop of Liege, if the interdicts under which he 
lay were removed. In response orders came from Rome in 
May, 1 2 13, that the interdict should be relaxed as soon as the 
duke had abjured all allegiance to Otto and had made satis- 
faction or some agreement with the injured bishop. ^^* Bishop 
Hugh, however, prevented the absolution of Duke Henry, and 
the latter, still under the ban, was married at Laon by an ex- 
communicated priest. He continued his attacks on the 
bishop, who met him boldly and finally won a complete 
triumph over him at Steppes, October 13, 12 13. The bells 
of Liege at last broke the silence imposed upon them by the 
interdict to proclaim the good news of the duke's defeat. 
When the bishop returned to Liege, a conference was held with 
the prominent men of the city, and after much dispute it was 
decided to renew services at Liege. The interdict on Brabant 
continued until the next year. On the last of February, 12 14, 
Henry completed his peace with Bishop Hugh ; the duke 
entered the cathedral, lifted up the prostrate crucifix, humbly 
kneeled before the body of St. Lambert, and finally gave the 
bishop the kiss of peace ; then he and his lands received 
absolution. ^^^ 

"*Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 56 (Potth., 4736). 

*^^Reineri Annal. ad an. 1213-1214, in MGSS,, XVI, 664-671, I 
have found no record of an absolution by the other authorities who laid 
interdicts on the duke. 



142 THE INTERDICT 

76 Cologncy 1214.-1215, 

Cologne adhered to Otto during his anti- papal wars, and 
afforded him refuge even after the battle of Bouvines had given 
Frederick II the victory. It held out in spite of papal inter- 
dict until Frederick approached from Aachen. Then it 
yielded and induced Otto to depart from the city. In conse- 
quence of this submission the interdict was removed on Au- 
gust 4, 1215 , after having lasted for seventeen months. ^^^ The 
interdict on Cologne ends the series of cases connected with 
the Guelf and Ghibelline troubles. 

77 Lands of the Countess of Blois (between 1205 and 121J), 
This interdict grew out of the arrest of a robber by an offi- 
cer of the Countess of Blois. The canons of Chartres de- 
manded his surrender on the ground that he had been arrested 
in their jurisdiction. When the quarrel grew serious, the 
countess gave a pledge to abide by a judicial decision of the 
matter, but the canons, disregarding the pledge, put her lands 
under interdict and refused to relax it until she made amends. 

They justified their refusal to relax by their privilege that 
no one might relax interdicts laid by them unless suitable sat- 
isfaction C congrua satisfactio *') had been made ; and they 
considered reparation to be the only satisfaction. Failing to 
get consideration from the canons, the representatives of the 
countess applied to the metropolitan, who felt himself unable 
to decide the case, and therefore referred it to Rome. There 
the case was heard sometime between 1205 and 12 13 by 
Roger, Cardinal-presbyter of the title of St. Anastasia.^^^ In- 
nocent then wrote to the Abbot of St. Genevieve, the Dean, 
and the Chancellor of Paris that the interpretation of the con- 
tested words of the privilege depended on whether the inter- 
dict was laid for contumacy, that is, if some one, when cited, 
refused to stand before the law ; or whether it was laid for an 
offence, that is, if some one, when ordered, refused to make 

^^^Winkelmann, Philipp v. Schwaben^ II, 393-396, 
*" This fixes the date. 



APPENDIX 



143 



reparation. In the first case, a pledge to appear before a court 
was '^ congrua satisfactio ", and the interdict could be relaxed : 
in the second case, if the offence was clear, the interdict could 
not be relaxed until actual reparation was made.^^^ What ac- 
tion was taken upon this decision is not known, for the inter- 
dict is not heard of elsewhere. 

78 Lands of the Countess of Champagne y various dates, 
Meaux, 1214. 
That the Countess of Champagne was repeatedly annoyed 
by interdicts is evident from her complaint at Rome, in which 
she asserts that the Archbishop of Sens and the Bishops of 
Troyes, Langres, Chalons, and Auxerre hastily pronounced sen- 
tences of excommunication and interdict against her lands 
and her subjects, rather from impulse than from zeal for 
righteousness. Her complaint brought the offending prelates 
a communication from Rome demanding of them such deport- 
ment as would give the countess no further grievance (No- 
vember, 1210) .''^^^ Perhaps the warning was temporarily effec- 
tive, but subsequent events show that it lost its power over 
some of the former offenders, for in 12 14 Innocent found it 
necessary to take Blanche and her son Thibaut IV under his 
protection, against the bishops and other prelates of the pro- 
vince of Reims, and especially against the Bishop of Chalons. 
All these had encroached upon her civil jurisdiction ^^° and had 
used excommunications and interdicts to sustain their courts, 
and to compel the payments of the fines of those persons who 
violated the Lord's day by fighting. ^^^ In order to make this 
protection of the countess effective, on December lo, 12 14, 
the pope called the attention of the Archbishop of Reims, the 
Bishops of Chalons and Soissons, and their officials and chap- 
ters, to his recent intervention in behalf of the countess, and 

^^^C. 23. X. de verb, signif. 5. 40. 

*^»Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat. 5993 A, fol. 6, r«-7, v° (Potth., 4135a). 

^20/32^. (Potth.,4943). 

^^^Lebeuf, Mint, Dioche d* Auxerre^ I, 389-390. 



144 ^^^ INTERDICT 

suggested that they should not lightly issue either excommuni- 
cation or interdict against her or her subjects ; he also notified 
them that the Bishop of Auxerre, the Abbot of Vezelai, and 
the Archdeacon of Auxerre were empowered to use ecclesi- 
astical disciplines against them.^^ But even this was not ade- 
quate protection, for in 1215 Innocent granted to the countess 
and her son the privilege that no one could excommunicate 
them or interdict their lands. These orders and privileges 
were no doubt the result of frequent threats, if not of sentences 
of interdict. ^^^ Of the duration, extent, and effectiveness of 
the threats and sentences nothing is known with the exception 
of the following interdict on the town of Meaux in 12 14. A 
charter of Stephen of Noyon relates that he came to Meaux on 
business and found the place under interdict because the prevot 
of the Countess of Champagne had seized some church proper- 
ties. Finding that the countess was in the town, Stephen 
went to her and advised her to restore the properties. She 
acted on his advice, but reserved all rights. ^^* This charter of 
Stephen is dated Sunday, March 2, 12 14, about which time it 
is probable that the interdict was relaxed. 
79 Rougfif 1207. 

This interdict was laid on Rouen and all its churches by 
the chapter of the city, because a canon had been imprisoned 
by the mayor on account of a brawl. '^^^ The King of France 
was greatly concerned about the matter, and wrote to the 
chapter many times, advising, commanding, and threatening; 
finally he sent four commissioners to induce the chapter to 
relax the interdict for the honor of the king, and promised 
that the cause of the canons should be tried. On the first 
day, the chapter stood its ground and the negotiations were 
futile ; on the second day, the commissioners offered to acquit 

22»BibL Nat., MS. Lat. 5993 A, fol. 7, r°-8, v« (Potth., 4946). 
*23potth., 5269. 

22*Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat. 5993 A, fol. 158, r«-iS9, v«. Cf, Arbois de 
Jubainville, Comtes de Champagne^ V, 87, 905. 

*^^Chron. Rothomag. ad an. 1207, in Labbe, Nova Bibl.y I, 370-371 » 



APPENDIX 145 

the canon on condition that the interdict be relaxed. The 
chapter responded that the mayor had detained the canon 
contrary to justice and to ecclesiastical liberty, even after he 
had been asked to free him ; and that therefore the city was 
under interdict, which sentence ought not to be and could not 
be relaxed until the mayor had made reparation. The chap- 
ter carried the day. The canon was surrendered, and the 
mayor, in the presence of the full chapter, the royal agents, 
and a large throng which gathered to witness the event, gave 
bail and provided good and sufficient sponsors. ^^^ These 
things having been done for the praise of the Lord and the 
honor of the church, the interdict was removed.^^^ 

80 England, 1208-1214. 

The great interdict of England and the interdicts growing 
out of it are intentionally omitted. 

81 Oxford, I20g-i2i4. 

In the course of the year 1209, a student, while practicing 
archery, accidentally killed a woman. ^^^ When he found that 
she was dead, he sought safety in flight. The mayor and 
others, upon discovering the body, searched for the homi- 
cide in the lodgings which he with three fellow-clerks had 
rented. Not finding the guilty man, they imprisoned his 
three companions, who were still entirely ignorant of the 
accident. Some days after, at the order of King John, whose 
realm was then under interdict, and who doubtless enjoyed 
the opportunity of making the lot of clerks miserable, the 

226Antiquus Cartul. Eccl. Baiocen., No. 300, in Mim, Soc. Antiq, 
Norm., 8 (1834), i, 452-453- 

227Chron. Rothomag. ad an. 1211, in Labbe, Nova Bibl., I, 372. This 
interdict was caused by the Archbishop of Rouen's retention of the chap- 
ter's share of the income from Dieppe. It was laid on the cathedral Sep- 
tember 17, and was removed September 29 through the mediation of the 
Bishop of Evreux, 

228 The Chronicle of Lanercost (ed. Stevenson, Bannatyne Cluby p. 4 — 
I take this from Walt. Covent., Mem., R. Ser., II, 201, n. 2) leads one 
to suppose that the cause for the trouble was the maltreatment and subse- 
quent murder of a girl. Cf. Chron. Mailros, ed. Fulman, p. 182. 



146 THE INTERDICT 

captives were conducted out of the city and hanged .^^® In 
consequence about three thousand scholars, including nearly 
all the masters, departed from the city.'"^^^ Some went to 
Cambridge, and others to Reading. An interdict was laid 
upon the city , though when and by whom is nowhere stated ; ^^^ 
it endured at least until October, 12 13, for Bishop Nicolas of 
Tusculum reached England about the end of September, 12 13, 
and made his way to Westminster, where he was met by the 
citizens of Oxford who were responsible for the hanging, and 
who now begged for absolution. ^^^ The legate fixed a penance 
for them, a part of which was that they should lay aside their 
garments and shoes, and with scourges in their hands should 
go to each church of Oxford, sing the fiftieth Psalm, and 

^^^ From the statement of Wendover \R, Ser.'), 11, 51, it seems that 
three clerks were hanged. Later, however, he says that only two clerks 
perished in this way, ibid.^ 94. The Annals of Coventry and the Chronicle 
of Lanercost state that one clerk was hanged. That several were hanged 
appears from the form of absolution to be mentioned later, 

280 w'end over ^R. Ser,), II, 51, states that not a single one was left. 
By the terms of submission this statement is proved to be too strong. Cf, 
Annal. Osney {R, Ser.) and Annal. Monast. (R. Ser.), IV, 54, and 
Chron. Felroburgense, ed. Stapelton, p. 6. 

2^^ C. W. Boase, in his Oxford^ p. 65-66, states that the interdict was 
laid by the legate Nicolas, Bishop of Tusculum. This cannot be correct, 
for Nicolas was in or near Rome throughout the year 1209 and attested 
papal letters (Potth., 3621, 3637, 3726, 3740, 3742, 3755, 3770, 3789, 
3852, 3856, 3858). He was not sent as legate to England until 1213, 
Wendover {R. Ser.), II, 93. The fact that there was an interdict on 
Oxford appears from the penance imposed on the city by the legate Nicolas, 
Mun. Acad. Oxon. {R. Ser.), I, 1-4. The annals of Coventry and the 
Chronicle of Lanercost hint at an interdict. 

282 Wendover [R. Ser.), II, 94. The penance mentioned by Wendover 
seems to have been assigned at Westminster. It should, however, be 
noted that on June 25, 1214, the legate Nicolas issued the terms for the 
absolution of the people of Oxford, and that at that time the interdict was 
still in force. Possibly the legate assigned a preliminary penance in West- 
minster, and the absolution to be given by the priests was merely for the 
murder and not from the interdict. At any rate this account of Wendover 's 
raises a curious point. In the first place, as has been said, the interdict 
was still in force in Oxford on June 25, 12 14. How, then, could priests 
give absolution in churches? This difficulty is made more serious by the 
fact that the interdict of the realm was still in force until about July i. No 
doubt Nicolas in his capacity as legate had power to open churches for the 
purpose indicated by Wendover, whose statement is therefore reconcilable 
vn\.\i events. 



APPENDIX 



147 



thereby obtain absolution from the priest. In order that 
neither they nor others should dare to commit a similar deed 
it was determined that this penance should be prolonged by 
their going thus to but a single church each day. 

The citizens as a whole were also disciplined. On June 25 , 
1 2 14, the legate addressed a letter to the burgesses of Oxford 
fixing their penalty for permitting the clerks to be hanged. It 
was therein stipulated that for ten years the townsmen should 
exact for lodgings only one- half the rent that they had charged 
previous to the withdrawal of the clerks. As for halls con- 
structed afterwards, or halls the rent of which had not been 
determined, the charges were to be fixed by a board of four 
clerks and four burgesses. Besides, the city was to contribute 
fifty pounds annually, payable in two instalments, for the 
support of poor scholars ; and forever after on St. Nicholas' 
day the city was to set a feast of bread, ale, pottage, and fish 
or meat for one hundred poor scholars to be named by the 
Bishop of Lincoln, or on his authority. The citizens were to 
swear to sell provisions to the scholars at fair and reasonable 
rates, and not to circumvent this agreement by fraudulent 
arrangements of any sort ; ^^^ if thereafter they arrested a clerk 
they were on demand to deliver him to the Bishop of Lincoln 
for safe-keeping ; and they were to renew this oath each year. 
A properly certified charter containing these terms was to be 
drawn up and given to the Bishop of Lincoln for safe- 
keeping.^^* The masters who had continued teaching after the 
scholars had fled from the city were suspended from lecturing 
for three years. After the interdict was relaxed all those citi- 
zens who had been convicted of hanging the clerks were to go 
without hats, coats, or shoes to the graves of the clerks whom 
they had hanged, and were to bury them properly in a place 
indicated by the clergy. When these things were complied 

^'This gave the University a right to share in the regulation of the 
markets of the city. See Burrows, Collectanea^ II, 46 {Pub. Oxf, Hist. 
Socy 1890). 

^^Mun. Acad. Oxon, [R, Ser.)^ 1-4, 



148 THE INTERDICT 

with, the lectures were to be resumed except by those who 
were suspended. Should they fail to meet the terms once 
agreed to, the interdict was to revive. The Bishop of Lincoln 
was made executor of the order. With the imposition of this 
severe penalty the interdict of Oxford disappears. 

82 Bergamo y about 12 10, 

The city of Bergamo disagreed with the canons because the 
citizens made exactions on ecclesiastics. For this reason the 
city was interdicted and remained under the sentence for a 
long time. As a consequence of the cessation of services the 
piety of the people began to diminish, and heresy began to 
put forward a bolder front. When the podesta of the city at 
last pleaded for mercy, the bishop and the chapter hesitated to 
accept without papal consent the satisfaction offered , and they 
brought the matter before Innocent. In April, 12 10, he in- 
structed the Abbot of St. Ambrose and the Archdeacon of 
Milan to make what terms seemed most expedient, and there- 
after to relax the interdict. ^^^ 

83 Coimbra, 1211, 

The interdict of Coimbra grew out of a difference of long 
standing between King Sancho of Portugal and the Bishop of 
Coimbra. ^^^ The immediate occasion for it was the bishop's 
demand that the king dismiss a sorceress whom he daily con- 
sulted. In a rage the king summoned the bishop, who refused 
to come. Seeking some further cause against the prelate, the 
king, stopping in a village of the bishop, demanded a meal 
under the right of purveyance. The demand was refused and 
Sancho demolished the buildings belonging to the bishop and 
canons, despoiled the church, and seized considerable episco- 
pal property. For this reason the bishop interdicted his dio- 
cese, and to prevent the Archbishop of Braga, who was friendly 
to the king, from raising the sentence appealed to the pope. 

Receiving news of this, Sancho ordered the confiscation of 

23^ Inn. Ill, Epp., XIII, 43 (Potth., 3962). 
^•'^^Luchaire, Les Roy antes Vassales du Saint- Siege ^ 14. 



APPENDIX I4g 

the property of any clerics who refused to hold services, de- 
claring that he should consider them his personal enemies, 
and that he should regard those as traitors who assisted them 
in any way. The Archbishop of Braga, on instructions from 
the king, summoned the Bishop of Coimbra to his presence to 
show cause for laying the interdict, and after a day ordered 
the bishop to remove the sentence . This the prelate declined 
to do, because no reparation had been made or promised for 
the damage to his church and property. But when the en- 
raged king, among other cruelties, blinded several clerics, who 
persisted in observing the interdict, in the presence of their 
relatives and friends, the bishop, fearing for his own safety 
and that of the innocent, relaxed the interdict in spite of the 
cost and loss to himself .^^"^ Not long afterward King Sancho 
came to an agreement with the bishop and the pope, and the 
latter confirmed his testament.^^^ Sancho died soon after. 
84 Portugal^ 1212-1213. 

Alfonso II, Sancho's successor, and his sisters fell into dis- 
agreement over their inheritance, and the sisters applied to 
the pope and obtained a confirmation of their father's testa- 
ment.^^^ The Archbishop of Compostella and the Bishop of 
Zamora were instructed to guard the rights of the princesses, 
and thus it came about that Alfonso was excommunicated and 
Portugal interdicted.^-^ Two Spanish abbots were commis- 
sioned by the pope to arbitrate the difference. When they 
were about to absolve the king from excommunication and in- 
terdict, the sisters restrained them_ on the plea that the papal 
letters ordering the absolution were forged. The abbots de- 
cided to take time to investigate. The king maintained that 
he suffered damage, because the agreement to remove the 
sentence as soon as he had taken the required oath had not 
been kept, and he therefore appealed to Rome. Both parties 

237 Inn. Ill, Epp., XIV, 8 (Potth., 4187). 
238 Inn. Ill, Epp., XIV, 58 (Potth,, 4255). 
239 Potth., 4316, 4318, 4319, 4324. 
^'^'^ Luchaire, Les Royautes Vassalesy 25. 



I go THE INTERDICT 

sent representatives to the pope , who commanded on May 2 1 , 
1213, that as soon as the king took oath to accept the papal 
award the sentences should be removed." 
85 Lands of Raymond of Toulouse^ 1 2oy, Ambulatory inter- 
dict, 1208— i2og, Toulouse, i20g-i2io and 1211- 
1214, 
The difficulties of the church with the Albigenses caused 
several interdicts. As early as 1198 Innocent gave his agents 
in Albigensian lands authority to use interdict to compel obe- 
dience to the church,^*^ The discipline was, however, not em- 
ployed until 1207. At that time, Pierre de Castelnau, the 
legate, was endeavoring to force Raymond VI of Toulouse to 
make peace with his local enemies, and to cease favoring the 
heretics. Raymond refused, whereupon the legate excom- 
municated the count and put an interdict upon his lands ; this 
sentence was confirmed by the pope on May 29, 1207.^^^ 
Raymond must have met the demands of the legate, for he was 
absolved before the first of August, and the interdict was 
doubtless removed at the same time.^^ Before the end of the 
year Raymond and the legate again disagreed. The latter 
considered the count too tolerant toward heretics, and ex- 
pressed his conviction by excommunicating him. Raymond 
tried to come to an understanding, but he seemed too vacil- 
lating and uncertain in his attitude to the papal emissaries, and 
they refused him favor. The angry count threatened them 
with death. On January 15, 1208, as Pierre de Castelnau 
was about to cross the Rhone, he was murdered by two un- 
known men generally supposed to have been under orders 
from the Count of Toulouse. This crime brought the wrath of 
the church upon the count. Orders were issued by the curia 

2" Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 52 (Potth., 4732). 

2*2 Inn. Ill, Epp., I, 94 (Potth., 95). 

2*3(a) Inn. Ill, Epp,, X, 69 (Potth., 3114). (b) Rec, XIX, 491 
(Potth., 3115). 

2^ (a) Petrus de ValHbus-Sarnaii, c. 3, in Rec, XIX, 1-113. (b) Hist. 
Gin. de Languedoc^ VI, 258. 



APPENDIX 



151 



on March 10 to the prelates of southern Gaul to excommuni- 
cate the murderer and those who gave him advice or aid, and 
to put under interdict all places to which he and his friends 
should come. To this was added a special excommunication 
of the count. ^^^ This sentence endured for more than a year, 
though nothing is recorded of its operation. In June, 1209, a 
council was held at St. Gilles, and there Raymond came to 
terms. He took oath to the conditions propounded by the 
legates, and was absolved from excommunication with a thor- 
ough shriving. ^*^ The terms under which the interdict was to 
be relaxed were fixed at the council and were afterwards pub- 
lished by the legates. Persons of importance excommunicated 
and interdicted nominatim who had not been present at the 
council were to appear, with letters from their bishops, before 
one of the legates for absolution. As to persons of lesser im- 
portance and the people, it was enough if the bishop or his 
authorized agent went to the place interdicted, and received 
the oath of the inhabitants to accept the award of the church. 
Bodies buried during the interdict were exhumed and were in- 
terred anew with the customary rites — unless they were ex- 
communicated nominatim^ in which case they had no right to 
burial anyway. If these things were done, the interdict was 
to be relaxed. ^^"^ Raymond then joined the crusaders against 
the Albigenses, and for a short time there was harmony. It 
ended when the legates sent emissaries to demand of the count 
and the citizens of Toulouse that they deliver to the barons of 
the army all persons whom the deputies should name, in order 
that such persons might clear themselves of charges of heresy. 
They were to deliver also the property of the persons named, 
under pain of excommunication and interdict. Raymond re- 
sponded that the demand was unjust, since he was recently 
absolved of all faults ; and the citizens of Toulouse who were 
named as suspects by the deputies proclaimed that they were 

2^nnn. Ill, Epp., XI, 26 (Potth., 3324). 

^^^ Hist. Gen, de Languedoc, VI, 277-282. 

^*' Acta Concilii Vaurensis, in Hard., VI, 2019-2035, 



JB2 



TUB INTERDICT 



perfectly orthodox, and that they with their fellow-citizens had 
sworn to that effect. ^^ The consuls of the city called the 
attention of the deputies to the fact that they had burned 
heretics whenever they found them, and they declared them- 
selves prepared to undergo legal action in their own city. 
This answer seemed contumacious to the legates, and they ex- 
communicated the consuls and proclaimed an interdict against 
the city. This probably occurred after mid-year of 1209. To 
this sentence was presently added a sentence of excommuni- 
cation against Count Raymond and an interdict upon his 
lands because the count refused to comply with the various 
demands made upon him. The sentence was moderated by 
giving Raymond until All Saints* day to make his peace; 
until that time the interdict was to be suspended. Innocent 
was notified of these proceedings about the tenth of Septem- 
ber.^^^ The sentence of interdict no doubt went into effect, 
for Raymond did not appear before the legates. He resolved 
instead to complain to the pope in person. 

He visited the court of Philip Augustus to influence that 
monarch in his favor, and from there went to Rome (Janu- 
ary, 1210).^^° Innocent received him with kindness ; and, if 
the count did not secure all he had hoped, he at least ob- 
tained the right of disproving the accusation of heresy. 
About the same time, envoys of the citizens of Toulouse ap- 
peared in Rome with credentials, and sought from the pope 
absolution for their city. In the same month. Innocent gave 
orders that the sentence should be removed, if the city gave 
sufficient pledge ; but, if the citizens failed to fulfil their 
promises, the interdict should revive. It seemed to the pope 
to be ill-advised to continue an interdict for so long a time 
when a city was prepared to yield. ^^^ These instructions were 

2*8 (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., XII, 170 (b) Hist. Gen, de Languedoc,\l, 
300-301; VIII, 612-613. 

2^9 Inn. Ill, Epp., XII, 107. 

^^^ Hist, Gin, de Languedoc^ VI, 308, 319-320. 

251(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., XII, 156 (Potth., 3885). (b) Hist, Gen, de 
Languedoc, VIII, 614-615. 



APPENDIX 153 

followed. The legate Arnold, without waiting for Th^dise, 
who had been associated with him in this a£fair, agreed to 
relax the interdict for a payment of a thousand pounds. The 
citizens promised to pay this sum and were given the bene- 
diction. When, however, only one -half of the sum promised 
was forthcoming, because of a misunderstanding among the 
people regarding the apportionment of the tax, the legate re- 
newed the excommunication of the consuls and the interdict 
of the city, though all the citizens were willing to obey him. 
This step greatly angered the people and it seemed for a time 
that the trouble was further than ever from a settlement. 
Still they did not dare to be open rebels, and therefore re- 
newed their oath, and gave hostages of their good faith, 
whereupon the sentences were again removed (1210).^^^ 

But the difficulties of the citizens of Toulouse were not yet 
over. A council was held at St. Gilles in September, 12 10, 
to try Raymond on the charge of heresy, and for the murder 
of Pierre de Castelnau. Acquittal was refused him on the 
ground that he had not fulfilled promises made under oath, 
and that he was therefore guilty of perjury. An excommuni- 
cation followed, and was confirmed by Innocent on April 15, 
1211.^^^ The interdict is not mentioned in this connection,^^* 
but it is evident that an ambulatory interdict dogged the 
count, for on the Saturday after Mid- Lent, 121 1, when the 
Bishop of Toulouse desired to ordain priests , he was prevented 
by the presence of the count.^^^ In order to surmount this 
difficulty the bishop requested the count to leave the city on 
pretense of making a pleasure excursion ; Raymond in wrath 
sent an envoy to the bishop ordering him to depart at once. 

^^^Hist. Gen. de Languedoc, VIII, 614-616. 

253 Inn. Ill, Epp., XIV, 36, 38 (Potth. , 4226). 

25^ The letter of the Bishop of Riez and Magister Th^dise in relating the 
excommunication states : ''Propter quae a legatis, de communi consilio 
praelatorum, multoties fuit anathematis mucrone percussus et exposita terra 
ejus.*' This last statement probably implies an interdict. Hist. Gen. de 
Laftguedoc^ VII, 49, n. xvi. 

^^^Petrus de Vallibus-Samaii, c. 51. 



154 ^^^ INTERDICT 

The prelate replied : ** The Count of Toulouse did not create 
me bishop, nor was I ordained by him , nor for him \ I was 
elected in accordance with ecclesiastical law and not thrust in 
by violence or by the authority of a prince. I will not leave 
because of him. Let him come if he dare ; I am prepared to 
be put to the sword in order to attain glory by the cup of pas- 
sion. Let the tyrant come, armed and with his minions; he 
will find me alone and unarmed. I await the reward, and will 
fear nothing that men can do to me." The bishop remained 
forty days expecting each one to be his last, but the count 
dared not touch him and allowed him to depart unharmed 
from Toulouse and join the army of the cross. 

In the same year, 121 1, the crusaders turned upon Ray- 
mond, and because the people of Toulouse adhered to him 
they were once more interdicted by the legate. ^^^ This inter- 
dict disappeared in the troublous times which followed and is 
not heard of again until 12 13, when it receives passing men- 
tion in a papal buU.^^' The existence of an interdict in 
Toulouse is also indicated previous to the battle of Muret. 
The citizens of Toulouse were beginning to weaken and sent 
an envoy to ask Bishop Fulc to come into the city. The pre- 
late asked Peter of Aragon, the military ally of Toulouse, for 
a safe-conduct, but was refused and told that, if he cared to 
negotiate with the citizens, he could do so with perfect se- 
curity. Fearing this was raillery , the bishop replied : * ' It is 
not meet for a servant to enter a place from which his master 
is exiled. I shall not return to a place from which the body 
of Christ has been expelled until my God and my Lord him- 
self returns.'' ^^ The cause of the people of Toulouse became 
hopeless with the victory of Simon de Montfort and the death 
of Peter of Aragon at Muret, but efforts for immediate peace 
failed. ^^ So far had the oppression of Toulouse gone that 

^^^ Hist. Gen de Languedoc^ VI, 363. 
257 Inn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 48 (Potth., 4741). 
^^ Hist. Gin. de Languedoc, VI, 423-424. 
^'^ Ibid., 6,12. 



APPENDIX 155 

Innocent at this time sent a new legate to bring the city 
back into harmony with the church ; and took the city under 
the protection of the Holy See.-^ In April, 12 14, the city 
finally submitted, and it was then, no doubt, that the inter- 
dict, now three years old, was relaxed. 

86 Marseilles ^ from about September^ I20g^ till after April, 

1211. 
The interdict just described lay also on the lands of Rous- 
selin. Viscount of Marseilles.^^- 

87 Narbonne, 1216. 

As long as Raymond and his followers were able to oppose 
Simon de Montfort, the latter and the church agreed fairly 
well ; but, when Raymond was conquered, there was no check 
on the ambition of Simon except the church. Among other 
objects he desired to possess the Duchy of Narbonne, and 
therefore he occupied it. This was absolutely contrary to the 
desires of the Archbishop of Narbonne, who retaliated by ex- 
communicating the count and by putting an interdict on all 
the churches of Narbonne, especially on the chapel of the 
castle, for the time that Simon remained in the city. Simon 
now had little of the horror of interdicts that he formerly pro- 
fessed to have , and he zealously had services performed in 
the chapel particularly interdicted ; he had its bell rung 
though all other churches in the city were closed. ^^^ The 
archbishop, thereupon, forbade clerks to perform services in 
this chapel, but to this prohibition they paid no attention ; he 
forbade Simon to enter or attend services in this chapel, 
but Simon made sport of it all with a laughing retort. The 
archbishop could not endure this insult and solemnly ana- 

2«oinn. Ill, Epp., XVI, 172 (Potth., 4890). 

^^^ (a) Hist. Gen. de Languedoc, VI, 304-306. (b) Inn. Ill, Epp., 
XIV, 40 (Potth., 4230). 

^^^ Potth., 5213. De Montfort may have done this in pursuance of the 
papal privilege which permitted him and his wife to hear services in inter- 
dicted places. This privilege was annulled by Honorius Ill's confirmation 
of the sentences imposed on Simon. 



1 56 THE INTERDICT 

thematized Simon. This aggravated interdict only irritated 
Simon, and produced greater ill-will toward the archbishop 
among the people. 

The legates then became interested in the matter. Arnold, 
Abbot of Citeaux, confirmed the sentences against Simon, and 
prayed for papal ratification. Before this was obtained Inno- 
cent died, and Honorius III was appealed to. He con- 
firmed the sentences and called the case before him by a writ 
of November 23, 12 16. Simon continued to act as Duke of 
Narbonne ; otherwise the outcome of the episode is unknown. ^^^ 
88 Auxerre^ about 1184-1204. 

Hugh Noyers, Bishop of Auxerre, disputed wdth Peter of 
Courtenay over property almost from the time that the latter 
became Count of Nevers (1184). The bishop defended him- 
self with the interdict. It was in force for fifteen years, ex- 
cept at such rare times as the prelate and the noble seemed to 
be at peace. Invariably the count offended anew, and the 
interdict again went into effect.^^* The long struggle finally 
began to show its evil effects in the large increase of crimes ; 
and it w^as feared that heresies would spread, inasmuch as men 
were becoming careless of their spiritual safety, for which 
reason the bishop and the canons, after some deliberation, 
agreed to alter the nature of the interdict. The count was 
excommunicated, and the interdict was observed in the city 
only so long as the count was present ; services did not cease 
altogether, but were conducted according to the rules for 
privileged places. By this substitution of an ambulatory for a 
local interdict the pressure was not removed from the count, 
though the burden of the church was lessened. ^^^ Hardly had 
this arrangement been made when the interdict was laid on 
France (1200). For various reasons the Bishop of Auxerre, 
strange as it may seem, refused to heed it.^^ 

"^^^ Hist, GSn. de Languedoc, VI, 479-481. 

^^* Davidsohn, Philipp II tind Ingeborg, 102--103. 

2^^ Hist. Episc. Autiss. ad an. 1203-4, in Labbe, Nova Bibl., I, 475. 

2^ See above, p. 79f. 



APPENDIX 157 

For nearly two years little is heard of the Auxerre interdict ; 
in March, 1203, papal letters were addressed to Abbot Ro- 
dulf and the monks of St. Germain of Auxerre, granting them 
as an especial favor the right to ring one bell at the burial ser- 
vice of a monk, providing the interval between the strokes of 
the bell was brief, and the bell was rung for a short time. This 
privilege was granted, it is stated, because the Bishop of 
Auxerre had granted a like privilege to the monastery of St. 
Julian and to the cathedral of Auxerre. ^^^ This clearly shows 
that an interdict was in force, though the accounts of the in- 
terdict give some cause to infer a lull in hostilities, if not an 
agreement, during the first half of 1203.^^^ Peace, however, 
did not last long. The excommunication of the count and the 
interdict pursuing him finally provoked him to a violent attack 
on the bishop and the clergy. ^^^ About September, 1203, 
Count Peter was in Auxerre, and as a consequence of his pre- 
sence the interdict was in force in the city. A mother whose 
child had died and could not be buried, because sepulture in 
the cemeteries was prohibited by the interdict, came to re- 
proach the count. Her importunate clamor and lamentations 
sent him into such a fury ^^^ that after the body had lain for 
three days^*^^ he ordered it to be buried before the bed in the 
bishop's chamber. ^^^ After this order was executed, the count 

26T (a) Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 23 (Potth., 1862). (b) It is possible that 
this practice of the cathedral is part of the agreement mentioned above, to 
mitigate the interdict. 

2®^ This may be a new case altogether, (a) Hist. Episc. Autiss. ad an. 
1203-1204, in Labbe, Nova Bibl., I, 475. "Comes . . . quodam 
tempore excommunicatus fuerat ab Episcopo Autiss. civitas interdicto con- 
clusa propter graves ejus excessus, qui vehementis indignationis igne suc- 
census , . Episcopum . . . et Canonicos et Clericos . . a civitate 
ejecit ..." (b) Robt. Altiss. , Chronolog. ad an. 1204, in Rec,^ 
XVIII, 269. ** Siquidem, anno praeterito, idem Comes, quibusdam de 
causis, ab episcopo anathematis vinculo innodatus ..." (c) Inn. Ill, 
Epp., VI, 149 (Potth., 2002). (d) Ibid,, 150 (Potth., 2003). 

2^^ See above, n. 268a. 

"^Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 149. ** . . . corpus . . . triduanum forsan et 
foetidum . . . " 

'■^^ See above, n. 268, 



Igg ^^-^ INTERDICT 

pretended that he desired reconciliation and secured a confer- 
ence, at which instead of reaching an agreement he per- 
petrated a new outrage. The dean and other clerks were 
pursued to their homes by servants of the count. Shortly 
after, much ecclesiastical property was seized,^^^ and persecu- 
tion became so severe that the bishop fled from the diocese 
and retired to Pontigny.^^^ The King of France profited by 
this opportunity to appropriate some of the bishop's property. 
The time at which the burial of the child occurred can only be 
inferred; it seems to have been about September, 1203, 
judging from the fact that between the ninth and the twenty- 
first of October ^^^ of that year Innocent wrote a letter to the 
count, in which he mentioned the insult offered to the bishop 
in trying ** to convert his home into a cemetery,*' and com- 
manded Peter to recall the prelate and make good the many 
injuries done him. If the count failed to do this, the Arch- 
bishop of Sens and the Bishops of Chartres and Chalons 
would on every Sunday and feast-day declare him excommuni- 
cated, and would on papal authority subject not only all his 
lands to interdict, but also every locality to which he should 
come.^*^^ These instructions are extant : besides ordering the 
above threatened sentences to be proclaimed, they instruct the 
commissioners to urge the King of France to restore those 
properties of Bishop Hugh which he had wrongfully appro- 
priated. '^« 

At the same time there was issued from the papal chancel- 
lery a letter, addressed to Philip of France, which began with 
an unusually long eulogy of that monarch, and, after recount- 
ing the startling events at Auxerre, urgently requested the king 
to restore the confiscated possessions of the bishop and to use 

^^^ Robt. Altiss., Chronolog. ad an. 1204, in Rec,^ XVIII, 269. 
2^8 Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 150. 

^■^^That this letter was written in October is not absolutely certain. Cf. 
Potth., 2003. 

275 Inn. Ill, Epp., VI, 149, 150 (Potth., 2002, 2003). 
*76lnn. Ill, Epp., VI, 151 (Potth., 2004), 



APPENDIX Igg 

his authority to bring Count Peter to obedience. ^^^ The Arch- 
bishop of Sens and his assistants informed the Bishop of 
Auxerre of this papal interference in his behalf .^"^^ For a time 
the count remained firm , but his humiliation came at last and 
the bishop exacted a fitting revenge. On Palm Sunday, April 
i8, 1204, there gathered in Auxerre a much larger number of 
people than was usual on that festival ; nobles and prelates 
from other dioceses were there, besides many whom the 
novelty of the scene to be enacted had induced to come. In 
the presence of this multitude the count performed his pen- 
ance. At the appointed time Peter of Courtenay, clothed in 
penitential garb, entered the bedchamber of the bishop, and 
with his own hands disinterred the body, which had now lain 
some months, and which emitted odors offensive to all present. 
Then, as though he were the commonest of men, the humili- 
ated noble raised the putrid body to his shoulder, and, in the 
sight of all conveyed it in procession to the cemetery, where 
he completed his expiation by doing sexton's service.^^^ 

89 Auxerre y between 1207 and 1220, 

The Dean of Auxerre gave orders to observe an interdict, 
laid probably by the authority of the chapter. The bishop 
countermanded the order and as a result many priests paid no 
attention to the dean's instruction. He therefore suspended 
them, but the bishop absolved them, and they continued to 
perform offices. The difficulty came to the knowledge of the 
Archbishop of Sens ; he ruled againt the bishop and ordered 
those who had relied on the bishop and disobeyed the dean to 
be scourged. This evident injustice to the clergy was prob- 
ably the reason why one of their number, Master Robert, re- 



2^^Potth., 2003. 

^T^nn. Ill, Epp., VI, 152 (Potth., 2005). 

^^^ (a) Hist. Episc. Autiss. ad an. 1203-1204, in Labbe, Nova BibL, 
n, 475. (b) Robt. Altiss., Chronolog. ad an. 1204, in Rec, XVIII, 
269. (c) There is no mention of removal of the sentence of either ex- 
communication or interdict. It is probable that the sentences were re- 
moved upon the completion of the count's abject submission. 



l6o T^HE INTERDICT 

belled : he was kept on bread and water for a period. ^^ That 
it is not the same interdict as that which lay on the city so 
long because of Count Peter of Courtenay is evident from the 
fact that the bishop opposed this sentence. ^^^ Though little 
is known of this case, one feature of it is noteworthy ; namely, 
the inferiors suffered when the authorities disputed over an in- 
terdict. 
90 Orleans and Auxerre, 1 20g-i2i2, 

In 1209 King Philip ordered the feudal army to assemble 
for an expedition into Brittany.^^^ When the Bishops of Or- 
leans and Auxerre arrived, and learned that the king was not 
to command in person, they returned home without the king's 
consent, averring that they were obliged to serve only when he 
led the army ; many lay princes followed their example. The 
king was exceedingly angry ; he ordered the bishops to explain 
and to make amends, and when they failed he seized their 
temporalities, leaving them their titles and spiritualities. The 
response of the bishops was an interdict on all royal lands 
within their dioceses ,^^^ and a journey to Rome to make a 
complaint. ^^* The pontiff declined to infringe upon the laws 
of the realm ,^^^ and preferred to get as much as possible for 
the church by persuasion of the king. In November, 12 10, 
the pope wrote two letters : ^^^ one to the king requesting him 
to restore the temporalities, and to pardon any offense given 
him ; and another to the Archbishop of Sens and his suffragan 
bishops urging them to lessen the wrath of the king. These 
letters were altogether ineffectual. In August, 12 11, a com- 

^•^^ Hist. Episc. Autiss., c. lix, in Labbe, N'ova BibL^ I, 481. 

2^^ See above, p. 156. 

282(a) Chron. de S. Denis ad an. 1209, in Rec, XVII, 394. (b) 
Lebeuf, Mhn. Dioche d"* Auxerre, I, 370-372. 

2^3 (a) Chron. de S. Denis ad an. 1209, in Rec, XVII, 394. (b) 
Lebeuf, Mim. Diocise d^ Auxerre, I, 370-372. (c) Guill. Armor., De 
Gest. Phil. Aug. ad an. 1209, in Rec, XVII, 82. 

^8* See above, n. 283a, b. 

^^^ See above, n. 283a, c. 

^8^ wSee above, n. 283b « 



APPENDIX l6l 

munication was sent by the curia to Philip stating that, as he 
would not restore the bishops' property without legal proce- 
dure, so the pope could not remove the interdict without judi- 
cial cognition. The suggestion followed that each party give 
up its demand for legal action, and that the matter be settled 
by arbitration. ^^"^ About March, 12 12, Innocent once more 
tried to persuade the king to surrender the temporalities, and 
promised that after that had taken place he would sift the 
matter to the bottom. This was an advantage that the king 
refused to have taken from him, for he was well aware of the 
justice of his position and would not weaken his case. Instead 
he secured from the pope a commission to the Archbishop of 
Sens to hear and decide the case f^^ the archbishop was in- 
structed to induce both parties to give up legal procedure and 
to settle the matter by agreement.^^ Disregarding his in- 
structions and over-riding the appeal of the bishops, the arch- 
bishop at once decided in the king's favor ^^^ and declared the 
interdict relaxed. ^^^ His acts were canceled by the pope,^^^ 
who restored all things to their former state and ordered that 
no one presume to violate the interdict ; ^^^ at the same time he 
wrote to the king, and, without mentioning the reversal of the 
decision of the Archbishop of Sens, he endeavored to convince 
the king that he had acted illegally toward the bishops, that 
he deserved the interdict issued by them, and that he ought 
to restore the properties before the interdict was relaxed ; after 
restoration and relaxation had taken place, the case could be 
tried in the royal court.^^^ But this sort of reasoning did not 
induce Philip to give up the property, the possession of which 
was the strongest point in his case. Having given these sug- 

2S7lnn. Ill, Epp., XIV, 163 (Potth., 4300). 

288(a) Inn. Ill, Epp., XIV, 163 (Potth., 4300). (b) Ibid., XV, 108 
(Potth., 4531). 

2^^ Lebeuf, Mkm. Diocese d^Auxerre, I, 370-372, 

'^^^ Ibid,, IV, Preuves, No. 113. 

291 Inn. Ill, Epp., XV, 123 (Potth., 4543). 

292/^^V., 39 (Potth., 4444). 
'^Ibid., 40 (Potth., 4443). 



x52 ^^^ INTERDICT 

gestions a few weeks to produce results, the pontiff notified 
Philip that he had refused to confirm the decision of the Arch- 
bishop of Sens. He proposed again that Philip restore the 
property to the bishops, that they in turn relax the interdict, 
and that thereafter the courts of the realm try the whole 
question.^ 

Innocent was, however, beginning to feel that the matter 
had been pressed far enough ; for he wrote the bishops to do 
everything in their power to secure peace, *' since a bow 
which is always stretched loses its strength, unless it is occa- 
sionally unbent, and princes are sometimes better subdued by 
mildness than by rigor ' ' .^^^ He therefore proposed this ex- 
pedient : that the bishops should raise the interdict and ap- 
pear before the king for judgment ; and that the king pardon 
them and give them '' main-lev^e ".^^^ This suggestion was 
acted upon, and led to the establishment of peace. In 
August, 12 12, the bishops issued a joint proclamation from 
Meaux, in which they declared that they would question no 
marriage contracted after the relaxation of the interdict by the 
Archbishop of Sens, or any other act pertaining to the sacra- 
ments, if done according to approved custom; that they 
would take only such steps against the canons of St. Anianus,^^^ 
who had refused to observe the interdict, as they would have 
taken had their quarrel been with another than the king : and 
that they would harm no clerk or layman as a consequence of 
their long disagreement with the king.^^'^ Besides this joint 
declaration, the Bishop of Auxerre issued a separate charter, 
in which he acknowledged that he owed military service like 
all other bishops and barons, and that he would thereafter 
serve the king through his knights as did all others ; he also 
announced that the king had exempted him for life from per- 
sonal service , that he in return granted to the king as much as 

^* See above, n. 288b. 

295 Inn. Ill, Epp., XV, 109 (Potth., 4532). 

^^Lebeuf, Mhn. Diocise d^ Auxerre, IV, Preuves, No. 113. 

29Unn. Ill, Epp., XV, 12 (PoUh., 4406). 



APPENDIX 163 

he chose to keep of the profits from the episcopal regalia 
seized before June 24, 12 12, and that he agreed to relax the 
interdict.^^ The king in turn issued a charter in which he 
confirmed these terms. ^^^ 

There arises a question as to what agreement was reached 
by the Bishop of Orleans and the king. Though it is very 
probable that the bishop made the same terms as did the 
Bishop of Auxerre , there is no documentary evidence of it ex- 
cept the joint declaration of the bishops. This, coupled with 
the fact that in January, 12 13, the king and the Bishop of 
Orleans were in disagreement over the interdict of that prelate 
on a royal chapel,^^ argues that the Bishop of Auxerre alone 
came to a complete agreement with Philip. Though this dis- 
agreement over the chapel may indicate the continuation of 
the struggle between the king and the Bishop of Orleans, it 
is very probable that the interdict laid in 1209 on the dioceses 
of Orleans and Auxerre was relaxed in August, 12 12. 

2^8 Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat. 9779, fol. 274. *' W. Dei gratia Autissiodoren- 
sis episcopus omnibus presentes litteras inspecturis in Domino salutem. 
Noveritis quod nos confitemur debere Domino nostro Regi Francorum 
illustri Philippo exercitum suum sicut commune episcoporum et baronum 
debet, et ilium de caetero per milites nostros et aliter serviemus. Idem enim 
Dominus Rex personam nostram ex servitio exercitus quamdiu vixerimus 
relaxavit, et nos pro hac relaxatione et pro amore ipsius et gratia habenda 
concedimus et volumus quod ipse de proventibus regalium nostrorum quos 
percepit usque ad festum Sancti Joannis Bapt. nuper praeteritum retineat 
pro sua voluntate ; super eo autem quod ex inde retinebit ipsum vel haeredem 
suum vel alium pro ipso in causam per nos vel per alium non trahemus et 
relaxabimus interdictum .... Actum apud Meled. anno D. MCCXII. 
mense Augusto." (I have not found this charter in print.) 

^^^Lebeuf, Mem. Diocese d'' Auxerre, IV, Preuves, No. 114. 

300 Inn. Ill, Epp., XV, 227 (Potth., 4666). 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



The source material for the study of interdicts is usually meagre, and 
hidden away in the midst of information on other subjects. The only ex- 
tended contemporary account which has come to the author's notice is 
Sarpi's '* Historia particolare " of the Venetian interdict of 1606. The 
brevity of most references to interdicts makes information on the subject 
scrappy, and any treatise on the interdict perforce has something in com- 
mon with a crazy-quilt. Source material is also widely dispersed. One 
sometimes discovers it in most unexpected- places, and again fails to find it 
where it is most reasonably sought; a gloss upon a manuscript may con- 
tain a bit of useful information, while the " Catalogue des actes de PhiUppe- 
Auguste " is disappointingly destitute of material on the interdict. The 
official correspondence of churchmen and the acts of councils and synods 
are the most fruitful sources. Chronicles follow in importance, and are 
valuable for the dramatic aspects of the interdict, though their short ac- 
counts might lead one to believe that interdicts were of little importance. 

What has just been said of sources in general is especially true of the 
period of Innocent III; there is not a single extended account of an inter- 
dict in the original sources, though two of the most important interdicts 
occurred during this time. So many sources of the period have been pub- 
lished, that manuscripts offer relatively less than they do in other periods. 
All the pipe rolls in the Record Office for the years from 1207 to 1216 
were worked over, and all entries likely to shed any light on the operation 
of the English interdict were noted. This work promises to give modest 
results, but of so detailed a character that they are reserved for use at a 
later time in a discussion of certain phases of the interdicts on England 
from 1208 to 1 216. Besides the pipe rolls, many manuscripts in Paris and 
London were read, with the same scrappy results that the printed sources 
gave. Of the pubHshed sources, the correspondence of Innocent is most 
useful; episcopal correspondence and conciliar acts are little less valuable. 
Charters, if they concern the interdict at all, are extraordinarily serviceable. 
Chronicles are not so helpful as one expects and wishes; a few give short, 
interesting accounts of the effects of interdicts. The sermons perused 
yielded nothing, and ** Vitae '* gave little help. 

Secondary works were of more use for general knowledge of the inter- 
dict than for the period of Innocent III. They usually treat the interdict 
as a part of a larger subject. All canonists devote some space to a con- 

(164) 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 65 

sideration of the interdict; noteworthy among them are Avezanus, Avila, 
Dupin,. van Espen, Ferraris, Friedberg, Lammer, Permaneder, Phillips, 
Richter, Schulte, and Vering, whose works are not given below because 
they have been made unnecessary by more comprehensive works. Several 
histories of the period of Innocent III give considerable attention to special 
interdicts. Of the monographs on the interdict — the studies of Pithou, of 
Kober, and of Rowland — I have spoken at the beginning of this essay; 
and more precise information may be found under these names below. 
For convenience of reference, the titles below, with the exception of the 
manuscripts, are arranged in alphabetical order. Works cited without 
comment have only incidental value for the interdict. 

SOURCES. 
Manuscripts, 

Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris), MS. Lat. 9779, fol. 274. — A charter of 
the Bishop of Auxerre; valuable, as it gives information about the relaxa- 
tion of interdict. 

Bib. Nat., MS. Lat. 5993. A, fol. 158-9. — A charter of Stephen of 
Noyon relative to the interdict of Meaux, 1214. 

Bib. Nat., MS. Lat. 5993. A, fol. 6-8. — Papal bulls concerning the 
interdict in Champagne. 

Bib. Nat., MS. Fran?. 17264. — Contains a brief note on the conduct of 
Philip Augustus during the interdict on France, 1200. 

Berengar Fredoli: Tractatus de excommunicatione, de interdicto. Bib. 
Nat., MS. Lat. 15415? fol. 229f. (Found also in other libraries.) — This 
treatise was written while the author was Bishop of Beziers (1294- 1305), 
and instructs his parishioners what to do in cases of excommunication and 
interdict. He quotes the canons; thus the substance of his work may be 
found in the Corpus Juris Canonici. The virtue of the work is that it 
brings together all canons relating to conduct in time of interdict. 

Archives departementales de I'Oise (Beauvais), Cartulaire de S. Pierre 
de Beauvais, p. 89, tit. 329. — A papal bull to the Bishop of Beauvais con- 
cerning the relaxation of an interdict, probably that of France, 1200. 

Arch, depart, de I'Oise (Beauvais), H. 2143. (Inventaire de titres de 
S. Corneille de Compiegne). — A bull of Innocent commanding observance 
of interdict. 

Arch, depart, de la Seine-In f^rieure (Rouen), 6. 3596. — A bull of Inno- 
cent concerning a discipline upon the burgesses of Rouen. 

Arch.depart.de PYonne (Auxerre), H. 14. — A bull of Innocent III 
granting important privileges against the interdict. 

Arch, depart, de la Cote-d'Or (Dijon), No. 73, fol. 172, — Enumerates 
several important causes for interdicts. 



l66 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Published Sources, 
Achery, Lucas d\- Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum, 
qui in Galliae bibliothecis, maxime Benedictinorum, delituerant. Nova 
editio. Paris, 1723. — Of no value for the period of Innocent III, but of 
some use for earlier interdicts. 

Acta Sancto7'um Bollandistarum. Brussels, etc., 1643 ff. — Not es- 
pecially valuable for the present research. 

Aguirre, yos. Saenz de : Collectio maxima conciliorum omnium His- 
paniae et novi orbis . . , Rome, 1753-55. 

Annales S. Edmundi, ed. F. Liebermann, in Ungedruckte Anglo- 
Normannische Geschichtsquellen, pp. 97-155. Strassburg, 1879. — These 
annals are of some value for the interdict of England, 1208. 

Bellarmin^ P., Cardinal: Risposta del Card. Bellarmino al Trattato de 
i sette Theologi di Venetia sopra I'interdetto della Santita di nostro Signore 
Papa Paolo Quinto. Rome, 1606. — A reply, on the Pope's behalf, to the 
argument of the theologians of Venice (see Sarpi, P., and others, Trac- 
tatus). It gives attention to the results of interdict. 

Boehmer, J, P. : Fontes rerum Germanicarum. Stuttgart, 1843-1868. 

Boehmer, J. p.: Regesta imperii inde ab anno 1198 usque ad annum 
1254. Neue Bearbeitung. Stuttgart, 1847-49. — The still later revision 
by Ficker and Winkelmann (Innsbruck, 1881-1901) has not been used in 
this research. 

Bullarium Pomanum, — Bullarum, privilegiorum, ac diplomatum Ro- 
manorum pontificum amplissima collectio. (Ed. Cocquelines.) Rome, 
1738-45. — I have sometimes used instead the Taurinensis editio^ 1857 ff. 

Chapeaville^ y,: Qui gesta pontificum Tungrensium, Trajectensium, et 
Leodiensium scripserunt, auctores praecipui . . . Liege, 161 2-1 8. — Con- 
tains important source material for the interdicts of Liege, in Hocsemius' 
Hist. Pont. Leod. 

Chevalier, U.: Ordonnances des rois de France et autres princes 
souverains relatives au Dauphine. Colmar, 1871. 

Chronicles of the Mayors and Sheriffs of London. Translated by H. T. 
Riley. London, 1863. 

Collection des principaux cartulaires du diocese de Troyes, (Edited by 
C. Lalore.) Paris, 1875-90. — Contains some useful information about the 
interdicts in Champagne. 

Corpus yuris Canonici. — ^This has of course been of fundamental im- 
portance. I cite it, as is customary, without use of title. 

Delisle^ L,: Catalogue des actes de Philippe -Auguste. Paris, 1856. — 
Contains but little reference to interdict. 

Du Cange, C. Dufresne : Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, ed. 
Henschel. Paris, 1840-50. — Contains a brief discussion of the interdict 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 67 

and gives the text of the sentence of interdict issued by the Council of 
Limoges. 

Duples-Agier^ H.: Chroniques de Saint Martial de Limoges. Paris, 
1874. — A reliable source; of importance for Limoges interdicts. 

Fonti per la storia d'' Italia, Rome, 1887 ff. 

Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa . . . Paris, 
1715-1865. 

Gesta Innocentii Papae III, ab auctore anonymo, sed coaetaneo, 
scripta. (In Migne, Patrologia Latina, v. 214, col. xv-ccxxviii.) — Very 
valuable. Gives information about several interdicts of which no other 
evidence could be found. 

Goffridus Vindocinensis : Epistolae. (In Migne: Patrologia Latina, v. 

Haddan, A, W,^ and Stubbs, W.: Councils and ecclesiastical docu- 
ments relating to Great Britain and Ireland. Oxford, 1869-78. 

Haigneri, L.: Les chartes de S. Bertin. Paris, 1886-89. — A rehable 
and useful work. 

Hardouin, y,: CoUectio regia maxima conciliorum, ab anno 34 ad 
annum 1714. Paris, 1715. — Contains conciliar acts which are useful for 
every phase of the interdict. 

Harzheim, y., and others: Concilia Germaniae. Cologne, 1759-90. — 
Of little value to the present study. 

Henriquez, C. : Regula, constitutiones et privilegia ordinis Cisterciensis. 
1630. 

Huillard-Briholles, J, L. A,: Historia diplomatica Friderici Secundi, 
sive Constitutiones, privilegia, mandata, instrumenta quae supersunt istius 
imperatoris et filiorum ejus. Paris, 1852-61.— -Contains a few documents 
of value for interdicts. 

Innocent III^ Pope : Opera omnia. (In Migne : Patrologia Latina, v. 
214-217.) — ^This edition, a reprint of older ones, contains not only the 
literary works of Innocent and the anonymous life of him (Gesta Inno- 
centii) named above, but the entire body of his papal letters. These let- 
ters yielded more information than any other source. They are cited 
sometimes by book and number (the " books " corresponding to the years 
of his pontificate), sometimes by volume and page: i. e., as ''^Irm. Ill, 
Epp.," etc., or as '* Inn. 0pp.," etc. 

Ivo, Carnotensis Episcopus (Bp. of Chartres) : Epistolae. (In Recueil 
des historiens des Gaules, XV, 70 ff.) 

Jaffe, Ph,: Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum. Berlin, 1864-73. — ^^ 
some value for the interdict in general. 

yaffe, Ph.: Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad 
annum 1198. Ed. 2., cur. S. Lowenfeld et al. Leipzig, 1885-88. — In- 
dispensable. Particularly helpful in discovering interdicts. Cited as 
**J-L." 



l68 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Labhe^ Ph.: Nova Bibliotheca Manuscriptorum Libroritm. Paris, 1657. 
— Besides other useful sources, this collection contains the Hist. Episc. 
Autiss. and the Chron. Rothomag., which are important sources for the 
interdicts of Auxerre and Rouen respectively. 

Langebek, y.: Scriptores rerum Danicarum medii aevi. Copenhagen, 
1772-1834. — This and the source next named are useful for tracing inter- 
dicts in Denmark. 

Ludewig, y. P.: Reliquiae manuscriptorum omnis aevi diploraatum ac 
monumentorum ineditorum adhuc. Frankfort, Leipzig, Halle, 1720-41. 
— The chronicle of the **Auctor Anon." found in Ludewig contains an 
important passage upon the interdict in Denmark. 

Mansi^ y. D,: Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. 
Florence and Venice, 1759-98. — More complete than Hardouin and of 
similar value. 

Martene^ ^., and Durand, U.: Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, seu 
Collectio monumentorum, complectens regum ac principum aliorumque 
virorum illustrium epistolas et diplomata bene multa. Paris, 171 7. — Con- 
tains the text of the sentence of interdict on France, 1200. 

Meiller, A. v.: Regesta archiepiscoporum Salisburgensium — Regesten 
zur Geschichte der Salzburger Erzbischofe. Vienna, 1886. — Of some 
use for interdicts in the Empire. 

Migne^ y. P.: Patrologia Latina. Paris, 1844-64 (the title-pages of 
the set most used in this research bear date 1889-91). — This compre- 
hensive and convenient though careless reprint of all the writers of the 
Latin church to Innocent's time is of course indispensable. 

Miraeus, A.y and Foppens^ y. P.: Opera diplomatica et historica. 
Brussels, 1723-48. 

MiUarelli, y, ^., and Costadoni^ A,: Ann ales Camaldulenses ordinis 
S. Benedicti. Venice, 1755-73.— Of incidental value. 

Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Hannover and Berlin, 1826 ff. — 
The chronicles printed in the Monumenta (cited as " MOSS ") are useful 
in following interdicts in the Empire. Of particular value are the 
chronicles of Arnold of LUbeck and Aegidius Aureaevallensis. 

Muratori, Z. A,: Rerum ItaHcarum Scriptores. Milan, 1723-51. — 
Not very helpful for the period of Innocent III. 

Pflugk'Har Hungry, v.: Actapontificum Romanoruminedita TUbingen 
and Stuttgart, 1881-88. — Useful for the period preceding Innocent. 

PJlugk'Harttungy y. v.: Iter Italicum. Stuttgart, 1883. — Contains a 
useful reference to the interdict of Cremona during Innocent's reign. 

Placitorum Abbreviatio, Record Commission, London, 181 1. — Good 
for effect of the interdict on legal processes. 

Potthast^ A,: Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab anno 1198 ad annum 
1304. Berlin, 1874-75. — Continuing Jaffe's Regesta, and likewise indis- 
pensable. Cited as * « Potth. ' ' 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 169 

Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt K'oln. (Edited by L. Ennen and G. 
Eckertz. ) Cologne, 1860-79. — Contains various ordinances and regula- 
tions of the Archbishop of Cologne relative to interdicts. 

Raynalaus^ O.: Annales ecclesiastici ab anno 11 98, ubi desinit Car- 
dinalis Baronius. Lucca, 1747-56. — Embodying many documents, but 
not very useful for the present study. 

Rolis Series. — Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores, or Chronicles 
and memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during the middle ages. 
London, 1858 ff. — On the whole, the sources in the Rolls Series are not 
particularly valuable for the interdict; but this does not apply to the 
Materials for the History of Becket or to the Gesta Henrici Secundi. 
Roger of Wendover, in spite of inaccuracy, is useful for the history of the 
Oxford interdict. The Munimenta Academiae Oxoniensis is of very great 
value for the same interdict. 

jRotuli chartarum, 1199-1216, edited by T. D. Hardy. London, 1837. 
— This source and the two next named were of great use in tracing inter- 
dicts in England. They contain valuable items upon the interdict of 1208. 

Rotuli litterarum clausarum, 1 204-1 227, edited by T. D. Hardy. 
London, 1833-4. 

Rotuli litterarum patentium^ 1201-1216, edited by T. D. Hardy. 
London, 1835. 

Rymer^ T.: Foedera, conventiones, literae, et cujuscunque generis acta 
publica, inter reges Angliae et alios . . . The Hague, 1739-45. — Contains 
the text of several important documents relating to the interdict of Eng- 
land, 1208-13. 

Sarpi, P,: Historia particolare delle cose passate tra'l Sommo Pontefice 
Paolo V. e la serenissima Republica di Venetia. Venice, 1624, and often 
thereafter. In English translation (London, 1626) as** History of the 
Quarrels of Pope Paul V with the State of Venice." — The most extended 
account of an interdict that has come to the author's knowledge. Very 
interesting and suggestive. 

Sarpi^ P,: Apologia adversus oppositiones factas ab illustr. . Card. 
Bellarmino ad tractatus et resolutiones Johan. Gersonis circa valorem 
excommunicationum. Venice, 1606. — One of the pamphlets of the dis- 
pute over the interdict of Venice, 1606. Discusses the results of interdict. 

Sarpi, P., and others : Tractatus de interdict© sanctitatis Papae Pauli V. 
Venice, 1606. The reply on behalf of Venice, composed by seven theolo- 
gians, of whom Sarpi was the chief, to the papal interdict of 1606. For an 
answer from the papal side, see Bellarmin. The Tractatus, as well as the 
Apologia, may be found (in Italian) in all editions of Sarpi's works. 

Songe du Vergier, Le, (Somnium Viridarii.) — Both in its French and 
in its Latin form this famous dialogue on the claims of church and state 
has been printed by itself; but it may be found in Goldast's *' Monarchia " 
or in the ** Traitez des droits de I'eglise gallicane." 



170 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



St, Bartholomew^ s Hospital Journal^ XII, ii (August, 1905). — This 
issue contains a very valuable bull of the bishop of London discovered in 
the cartulary of the hospital. 

Stephanus^ Torttacensis Episcopus (Bp. of Tournay) : Epistolae. (In 
Migne: Patr. Lat., v. 211, col. 309 ff.) 

Teulet^ A.: Layettes du Tresor des Chartes. Vols. I, II, Paris, 1863, 
1866. — The later vols., by other editors, he beyond the scope of this study. 

Tkeiner, A.: Vetera monumenta Slavorum meridionalium historiam 
illustrantia maximam partem nondum edita ex tabulariis Vaticanis de- 
prompta collecta ac serie chronologica disposita. Rome, 1863. — Valuable, 
but the statements of the work are too brief to be of much service. 

Traciatus de inter dicto. See Sarpi, P., and others. 

Ughelli^ K: Italia sacra. Venice, 1717-22. 

Varin^ P,: Archives administratives de la ville de Reims. Paris, 
1839-48. (In the French national " Collection de Documents Inedits".) 
— Contains information of unusual quantity and quality about the interdict. 

Villanueva^ y. L.: Viage literario a las iglesias de Espaiia. Madrid, 
Valencia, 1803-52. — Vol. V contains an important letter of Innocent III 
relative to an interdict on Tortosa. 

Wilkins, D.: Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae. London, 1737. 

Secondary Works. 

Andreae, Johannes: Tractatus utihssimus de modo observandi inter- 
dictum. Magdeburg, 1483. — A treatise briefly explaining the canonical 
law relating to the observance of interdict. Its substance is much the 
same as that of any other work on canon law. 

Arbois de Jubainville, H. d' : Histoire des dues et des comtes de Cham- 
pagne. Paris, 1859-69.— Of some use in tracing interdicts in Champagne. 

Boase, C. W.: Oxford. London, 1887. — Gives some consideration to 
the Oxford interdict, but is inaccurate. 

Capefigue, J. B. H. R. : Histoire de Philippe Auguste. Paris, 1829. 
— An interesting but unreliable general account; superseded by Davidsohn. 

Catalogue generale des manuscrits des bibliotheques publiques des 
departements [de France], Paris, 1849-79. (In the Collection de 
Documents Inedits.)- — This and the Inventaires (see below) give some in- 
dication of the contents of manuscripts in departmental collections, and in 
several cases give information on interdicts. 

Chaufher, Abbe: Lettre Inedite d*Innocent III . . , in Bibl. de 
I'fecole des Chartes, XXXIII, 595-605. — An article relating to the inter- 
dict of Brittany, 1200. 

Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica. London, 1834-43. 

Davidsohn, Robert: Philipp II, Augustus, von Frankreich, und Inge- 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



171 



borg. Stuttgart, 1888. — An excellent work, which gives important details 
of the operation of the interdict in France. 

Diericx, Charles Louis : Memoires sur la ville de Gand. Gand, 18 14-16. 

Dondi dall' Orologio, F. S. : Dissertazione sesta sopra I'Istoria ecclesias- 
tica Padovana. Padua, 1812. 

Felten, J.: Papst Gregor IX. Freiburg i. B., 1886. 

Gautier, Th. : Histoire de la ville de Gap. 1844. 

Geraud, H. : Ingeburge de Danemark. In the Bibl. de I'Ecole des 
Chartes, 1844 (2e serie, I, pp. 3-27, 93-118). — This study gives the inter- 
dict of France (1200) careful consideration. 

Giry, A.: Histoire de la ville de Saint-Omer et de ses institutions. 
Paris, 1877. — A rehable work; of use for the interdict on Saint Omer. 

Hefele, C. J. v. : Conciliengeschichte. Freiburg i. B., 2. ed., 1873 ^- — 
Of little value for the interdict. 

Hinschius, Paul : Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten in 
Deutschland: System des katholischen Kirchenrechts. Berlin, 1869-97. 
— The most exhaustive and impartial discussion of the interdict. Particu- 
larly excellent upon the legal aspects of the subject. The history of the 
interdict is given with much detail; but, being scattered through several 
volumes, it is not readable. He gives no special attention to the period of 
Innocent III. 

Histoire Gen^rale de Languedoc. Nouvelle edition. Toulouse, 1872- 
92. — Very useful for tracing interdicts in southern France, though inter- 
dicts receive no special attention. 

Howland, Arthur Charles: The Interdict, its Rise and Development to 
the Pontificate of Alexander III.— A Thesis presented at the University of 
Pennsylvania for the Degree of Ph. D,, 1897. Unprinted. The best 
account of the origin and development of the Interdict. The author evi- 
dently had not seen Kober. 

Howland, A. C. : The Origin of the Local Interdict. Printed in the 
Report of the American Historical Association, 1899, Vol. I, 429-448. — 
A presentation of the above in altered form. 

Hurter, Friedrich von: Geschichte Papst Innocenz III. und seiner 
Zeitgenossen. Hamburg, 1836-42. — Long the most important work on 
Innocent III, but somewhat biased and now growing antiquated. 

Inventaires sommaires des archives departementales [de France] ant6- 
rieures ^ 1790. Paris, 1848. 

Kober, Franz: Das Interdict. In the Archiv fiir kathohsches Kirchen- 
recht, Vol. XXI (Neue Folge, XV) (1869), pp. 3-45, 291-341; Vol. 
XXII (N. F., XVI) (1869), PP- 3-53.— This study treats principally the 
law of the church relative to the interdict, but its discussion of the history 
is reliable, and is the most readable in existence. 

LaClede: Histoire Gen6rale de Portugal. Paris, 1735. — Of some value 
for the interdict on Portugal. 



172 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Lasteyrie, Charles de : L'Abbaye de Saint Martial de Limoges. Paris, 
1901. 

Lebeuf, J.: M^moires concernant I'Histoire Civile et Eeclesiastique 
d'Auxerre et de son Ancien Diocese, continues jusqu'a nos jours par M. 
Challe et M. Quantin. Auxerre et Paris, 1848-55. — A scholarly and 
helpful work. 

Luchaire, A. : Innocent III — Les Royautes Vassales du Saint-Si^ge. 
Paris, 1908. 

Luchaire, A.: Innocent III — Le Concile de Latran et la R6 forme de 
I'Eglise. Paris, 1908. — Contains a very good bibliography for the period 
of Innocent III. 

Magazin fiir Kirchengeschichte und Kirchenrecht des Nordens. Altona, 
1792-6. Hera\isgegeben von Friedrich Miinter. 

Mariana, J. : Historiae de Rebus Hispaniae libri XXX. Printed in 
Schott: Hispania Illustrata, II, IV. Frankfort, 1603-1608. 

Marlot, G. : Histoire de la ville, cite, et universite de Reims, contenant 
I'etat civil et eeclesiastique du pays. Reims, 1843-5. — ^ ^^^Y good work, 
containing a number of valuable facts about interdicts in and near Reims. 

Miinchen, Nicolaus: Das canonische Gerichtsverfahren und Strafrecht. 
Cologne and Neuss, 1865. Volume II, 208-214, contams a short sketch 
of the history of the interdict, which is superseded by Kober and Hinschius. 

Norgate, Kate: John Lackland. Gives so excellent a discussion of the 
interdict on England (1208J that any additional account, except of a few 
phases, is superfluous. 

Pithoii, Pierre: De I'origine et du progres des Interdicts ecclesiastiques. 
Printed in the Commentaires sur le Traits des Libert^z de I'Eglise Galli- 
cane, Paris, 1652. — For a long time this was the only history of the inter- 
dict. It is a short, good account. Its substance, though not all its ideas, 
may be found in Hinschius. 

Planck, G. J. : Geschichte des Pabstthums in der abendlandischen 
Kirche von der Mitte des neunten Jahrhunderts an. Hannover, 1805. 

Prynne, William: An exact chronological vindication and historical 
demonstration of our British, Roman, Saxon, Danish, Norman, English 
Kings Supream Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over all Prelates, Persons, 
Causes, within their Kingdoms and Dominions. London, 1666. — Useful 
for England. Citations lacking. 

Raumer, Fr. von: Geschichte der Hohenstaufen. 3. Aufl., Leipzig, 
1857. Contains some important facts about interdicts. 

Rohricht, R. : Geschichte des Konigreichs Jerusalem. Innsbruck, 1898. 

Rosny, L. de: Histoire de I'abbaye de Notre Dame de Loos. Lille, 

1837. 

Schulte, Joh. Friedrich v: Ueber Kirchenstrafen. Berlin, 1872. Pub- 
lished as No. 14 of the series *' Deutsche Zeit- und Streitfragen. " 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 73 

Thomassin, P. : Ancienne et nouvelle discipline de I'Eglise. Paris, 
1688. 

Viollet, Paul: Histoire des Institutions politiques et administratives de 
la France. Paris, 1 890-1 903. 

Winkelmann, Eduard : Philipp von Schwaben und Otto IV. von Braun- 
schweig. Leipzig, 1873, 1878. — Gives very satisfactory discussions of 
interdicts in the Empire. 



INDEX. 



Absolution from vows, 50 

Abuse of interdict, 35-37, 85, 143 

Achaia, 100 

Acre, 46 n., 49, 135 

Adolf, Archbishop of Cologne, 136 

Adolf of Harzburg, 93 

Adrian IV, 20 n. 

Aggravation of interdict, 52 

Agnes of Meran, 11 1, 120, 121, 122 

'' Aid " for removal of interdict, 84 

Albigenses, 150 

Albricus, knight, 27 

Alduin, Bishop of Limoges, 26 

Alexander II, 9, 20 n. 

Alexander III, 39 n., 47 n. 

Alexander IV, 45 n. 

Alexander VI, 33 n. 

Alfonso II of Portugal, 149 

Alfonso, King of Leon, 104 

Altars, 50, 51 n., 73, 119; altars 

interdicted, 47 
Altena, 136 

Amalfi, 33 n., 39 n., 460. 
Ambassadors affected by interdict, 

56, 67 
Ambulatory interdict, 2, 75, 78, 86, 

92, 93, 94, 106, 127, 136, 150, 

151, 153, 156, 158 
America, 49 
Amiens, no, 129 
Amiens, Bishop of, 116 
Amposta, 107 
Anacletus II, 82 
Andelay, 32 n., 88 
Andrew of Hungary, 65 n. 
Andronicus, 6 
Angelus, 15 
Anjou, 46 n. 
Antioch, 96, 134 
Anti-pope, 82 
Appeal, 148; against interdict, 41, 

88, 91, 113, 131; denied, 42, 

95, 108; disregarded, 42, 113, 

118, 135 
Appels comme d^abus, 42 n. 



Aquileia, Patriarch of, 95 

Aragon, 33 n., 36 n., 46 n. 

Aries, 47 n. 

Armenia, 46 n., 134 

Arnold, papal legate, 153, 156 

Arnoul, steward of T^rouanne, 129 

Arras, 47 n. 

Arras, Bishop of, 108, 116, 125, 

129 
Arthur of Brittany, 126 
Artois, Count of, 130 
Assisi, 28 

Asylum, right of, 34 
Auchy, Abbot of, 130 
Austria, 95 
Authorities who laid interdict, 19; 

limitations of their authority, 21, 

25 

Auxerre, 45, 47 n., 58, 65, 80, 81, 

156, 159, 160 
Auxerre, Bishop of, 31, 116, 123, 

124, 125, 143, 144, 156 
Auxilius, 6 

Baldwin, Emperor of Constanti- 
nople, 76 
Baldwin of Flanders, ^Z, 108 
Bamberg, Bishop of, 95 
Bandits, 26, 27; see also Robbery 
Banishment of clerics, 34, 70, 115, 

131 
Bankers of Florence, 31 
Baptism, 15, 104, 114, 119 
Barren lands, 46 n. 
Bari, 87 

Basse-Fontaine, Abbey of, 81 
Bavaria, 46 n. , 94 
Beauvais, 47 n. 
Beauvais, Bishop of, 109, 116, 123, 

124 
Becket, Thomas a, 28, 42 
Beggars, see Paupers 
Bells, the ringing of, 13, 15, 18, 53, 

77, 122, 126, 127, 132, 141, 

155, 157 



(I7S) 



176 



INDEX 



Belluno, Bishop of, 28 n., 100 

Benedict XII, 25 

Benediction of marriage, 14, 17, 

119 
Benevento, 46 n. 
Berengar of Narbonne, 35 n.) 36 
Berengar, Archbishop of Tarragona, 

28 n. 
Berengaria of Castile, 105 
Berengaria, Richard's queen, 27 . 
Berg, 136 
Bergamo, 148 
Besangon, Archbishop of, 85, 112, 

118 
Betrothal, 17 * 
Beverly, 132 
Beziers, 47 n. 
Blagny, Abbot of, 129 
Blanche of Castile, 58, 119 
Blanche, Countess of Champagne, 

36 n., 44, 143 
Blois, 23 n, 142 
Bodies unburied, 60, 120 
Bodies disinterred, 51, 57, 107, 

I5i» 159 
Boemund of Antioch, 134 
Bohemia, 46 n. 
Bologna, 88 
Boniface VIII, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24 

n., 37 n., 48, ']^ 
Boniface, Archbishop of Genoa, 134 
Bordeaux, Archbishop of, 116 
Borgo San Donnino, loi 
Bourges, Archbishop of, 125, 131 
Bouvines, 139, 142 
Brabant, 95, 140 
Bracton, 57 

Braga, Archbishop of, 34 n., 148 
Brambles placed before churches, 50 
Bread and water, 123 
Bremen, 40 n., 60, 137 
Bribery, 65 n., 106, 120 
Brienne, Walter of, see Walter of 

Brienne 
Brigandage, see Robbery 
Brindisi, 27, 87 
Brittany, 46 n., 125, 160 
Burgundy, 6 n., 112 
Burgundy, Duke of, loi 
Burial, canonical, see Canonical 

burial 
Burial fees, 57 n., 72, 78 
Business uninterrupted by interdict, 

65, 119 



Cahors, Bishop of, 131 

Cambrai, 32 n. 

Cambrai, Bishop of, 94, 108 

Cambridge, 146 

Canonical burial, 17, 18, 51, 53, 
57, 60,, 71, ^T, 7S, 104, 106, 
114, 120, 126, 139, 140 n., 157 

Canonical hours, 14, 77, 114, 126, 
140 

Canterbury, 46 n., 47 n. 

Canterbury, Archbishop of, 46 n., 
77y 90, 92, 97 

Capitular interdicts, 23, 144, 159 

Capua, 32 n., 139 

Capuchins, 54 

Cardinals, their power to lay inter- 
dict, 22 

Carthage, 47 n., 49 

Casino, Monte, 30 

Castello, 99 

Castile, 28, 46 n., 86, 105 

Catania, 47 n. 

Catechumens, 15 

Cause of interdict forgotten or un- 
known, 100 

Causes of interdict, 25 f., and Ap- 
pendix 

Celestin III, 92, 100, 104 n., 105, 
109, III 

Cemeteries, 73, 114; see also Ca- 
nonical burial 

Cesena, 25 n, 99 

Cessatio a divinis^ 7 n., 9 

Chalons, Bishop of, 143, 158 

Champagne, 44, loi, 143 

Chanting, 13 

Characteristics of interdict, 8 

Chartres, 23 n., 33 n., 142 

Chartres, Bishop of, 116, 123, 158 

Chauffer, Abb6, 125 

Children, 17 

Christmas, 15 n. 

Church harmed by interdict, 36 n., 
68, 98, 106, 108, 131, 137, 139, 
148, 156 

Church-building during interdict, 
63, 78; church dedication, 62 

Churching of women, 14, 58, 114, 

Cistercians, 29, 52 n., 71 n., 80, 

116, 123 
Citation, 37, 38 
Citeaux, 119, 156 
Classicianus, 6 



INDEX 



177 



Clement IV, 35 n. 

Clement V, 64 n. 

Clerics, banishment of, see Banish- 
ment of clerics 

Clerics harmed by interdict, 69, 71, 
158; see also Church 

Clergy unshaven and unkempt dur- 
ing interdict, 71 

Clermont, 35 n. 

Cluny, 112 

Cnut of Denmark, iii 

Coggeshall, 89, 120 

Coimbra, 44, 148 

Cologne, 31 n., 35 n., 45 n., 142 

Cologne, Archbishop of, 35 n., 78, 
80, 136 

Cologne, Council of, 48, 77 

Commerce affected, loi; see also 
Business 

Communion, 15, 16 

Como, Bishop of, 102 

Compidgne, 23 n. 

Compostella, Archbishop of, 34 n. , 
149 

Confession, 115, 126 

Confirmation, 15 

Confirmation of interdict by the 
Pope, 21, 115, 150, 156; by the 
state, 25 

Confiscation of property; see Prop- 
erty confiscated. 

Congrua satisfaction 142 

Conrad, Bishop of Hildesheim, 93 

Conrad, Bishop of Wiirzburg, 28 

Consanguineous marriage as a cause 
of interdict, 28, 65 n., 98, 104, 
III 

Consecration of the Host during in- 
terdict, 114 

Constance, Empress, loi 

Conversi, 75> 81 

Corpus Christi, 15 n. 

Cremona, 45 n., 133 

Cremona, Bishop of, 77 

Crucifix prostrated, 50, 140, 141 

Crusades and Crusaders, 66, 86, 2>^i 
115, 126, 129, 133, 151, 154 

Cyprus, 31, 46 n., 49, 86 

Dedication of churches during in- 
terdict, 62 
Degradation of clerics, 29, 52, 132 
Delegate his power to lay interdict, 
20, 22 



Denmark, 34 n., 45, 46 n., 49, 80, 

138 n. 
Deprivation of benefices, 53, 132, 

133. 137 
Diceto, 117 
Dieppe, 145 n. 
Dijon, Bishop of, 125 
Dijon, Council of, 22, 112 
Disinterment of bodies; see Bodies 

disinterred. 
Distribution of interdicts, 48 
Divorce as a cause of interdict, 1 11 
Dodart, Saint, 50 n., 140 
Dol, 125, 126 
Doors closed, 13, 14, 53, 64 n., 

76, 77, ii5j 120, 126, 140 
Druids, 4 
Dublin, 92 
Duration of interdicts, 44 

Easter, 15 n., 114, 131 

Eastern church, 49 n. 

Effect of interdict, 13, 58, 119, 
120, 153, 156; on officia divina^ 
13; on sacramentals, 14; on 
preaching, 15; on the sacra- 
ments, 15; on canonical burial, 
18 

Effectiveness of interdict, 48, 64, 
94, 106, 118, 120, 132, 136, 139, 
145, 148, 149, 151, 153, 155, 
159, 161 

Election of a Pope, 19 

Ely, Bishop of, 77, 90, 92 

Empire, 46 nn. , 136 

England, 38, 40, 42, 46 n., 47 nn., 
65 n., 88, 89, 90, 139; England 
(1208), 9 n., 14, 15, 17, 18, 
37 n., 38, 44 n., 52 n., 59, 60, 
64, 70, 76, 77, 84, 90, 145 

Episcopal interdicts, 20, 76 n., 107 

' * Escherte " , 93 

Etampes, 115 

Eugene III, 84 n. 

Eugene IV, 37 n. 

Evreux, Bishop of, 145 n. 

Excommunicates, 13, 14, 16, 131, 
132, 141 

Excommunication, general, the 
predecessor of interdict, 4 ff.; 
severity of, 7; opposition to, 7; 
changed to interdict, 7-8 

Excommunication, personal, 12 n,, 
118 



178 



INDEX 



Exemption from interdict, 76 

Exorcism, 14 

Extent of interdict, 46 

Extreme unction, 15, 16, 115, 126 

Factions, 67, 71, 116, 159 

Faversham, 51 n. 

Feast-days, interdict suspended on, 

15, 18, 29, 78 
Ferrara, 44, 47 n. 
Ferrara, Bishop of, 43 
Flanders, 25, 79, 108, 129, 130 
Fleury, Monastery of, 75 
Florence, 31, 33 n., 44 n., 47 n., 

55 
Forgery, 55, 85, 149 
Formulas of interdict, 39, 113, 114 
Formulas of relaxation, 83, 84 
France, 47 n., 49, 84 
France (1200), 14, 22, 37 n., 38, 

58, 60, 65, 76, iiof. 
Francis of Assisi, 28 
Frederick II, Emperor, 27, 33 nn., 

142 
Frederick of Lille, 93 
Frequency of interdicts, 43, 143 
Fulc, Bishop of Toulouse, 154 
Fulda, Abbot of, 95 

GallipoU, 87 

Gallus, 20 n. , 99 

Gap, 46 n. 

Geldern, 136 

Genoa, 47 n., 56, 69, 133 

Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, 35 
n., 90, 91, 132 

Geoffrey de Mandeville, 59 n. 

Geographical distribution of inter- 
dict, 48 

Gerardus Taciolus, 100 

Germany, 48, 92, 136 f. 

Ghibellines, 136 

Gifts to churches during interdict, 

63 

Gilbert, Bishop of Rochester, 67 n. 
Girgenti, 34 n., 47 n., 70 n. 
Gloucester, Countess of, 59 n. 
Government unimpeded during in- 
terdict, 66 
Grace, length of, 37-38, 113 
Greek Church, 49 n. 
Gregory VII, 49 
Gregory VIII, 39 n. 
Gregory IX, 13, 25 



Gregory, Cardinal- deacon, 104 
Gregory of Tours, 28, 50 
Guelfs, 136 

Hainault, 108 
Harzburg, Adolph of, 93 
Henry of Brabant, 95, 140 
Henry of Constantinople, 34 n. 
Henry, Count Palatine, 33 n., 95 
Henry II, of England, 28, 33 n., 

65 n., 69, 80, 130; Henry III, 27 
Henry of Harzburg, 93 
Henry, Mayor of London, 61 n. 
Henry, Duke of Normandy, 34 n. 
Hereford, Bishop of, 90 
Heresy, 36 n., 52, 55, 72, 73, 74, 

%T, 106, 148, 150 
Heresy as a cause of interdict, 29, 

150 
Hermann of Harzburg, 93 
Hermann of Thuringia, 94 
Herve, 98, 99 
Hesdin, Prior of, 130 
Hildesheim, Bishop of, 93, 136 
Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, 15, 

17. 36 
Hincmar, Bishop of Laon, ion., 

17. 36 
Hinschius, 9 n., 10 n., 11 n., 43 n. 
Hochstaden, 136 
Holy water, 14, 114, 115 
Holes in doors, 64 n. 
Holidays, see Feast-days 
Holy Sepulchre, 78 n. 
Honorius III, 155 n., 156 
Hospitalers, 18 n., 76 n., 89, 107, 

127 
Hospitals, 61, ']^, 78 
Hoveden, 58 

Howland, A. C, i, 43 n., 48 
Hubert, Walter, 90 
Hugh de Brosse, Abbot, 130 
Hugh, Bishop of Liege, 140 
Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln, 68 n., 

119 
Hugh Noyers, Bishop of Auxerre, 

3i» 156 
Hungary, 46 n., 65 n., 86 
Huntingdon, Archdeacon of, 66 n. 
Huy, Council of, 140 

Images prostrated, 50 
Immorality as a cause of interdict, 
27 f. 



INDEX 



179 



In articulo mortis^ i6, 114, 139 

Indulgence, as persuasion to ob- 
servance of interdict, 54, 55 

Infidels, 33; see also Saracens 

Ingeborg, 28, no f. 

Innocent 11, 20 n.; Innocent III, 
2, 3» 9» I3» I4» 16, 18, 20 n., 
21, 24 n., 26, 27, 31, 37 n., 43, 
44, 46 n., 48, 49, 52 n., ^(), 80, 
81,86-163; Innocent IV, 36 nn., 
85; Innocent VI, 37 n. 

Inquisition, 32 n., 55; lays inter- 
dict, 25 

Instruction of scholars during inter- 
dict, 63 

Interdict, the word, 8-9; kinds of, 
2, 19; local, 2, 4-8; personal, 
2 n., 12 n., 21, 23, 28 n., 89 n., 
102 n.; threats of (see Threats) 

Interdicts, duration of, 44; effect 
of (see Effect of interdict); ex- 
tent of, 46; frequency of (see 
Frequency); purpose of, 9- 1 1 

Inter di ctum ferendae sententiae, 19, 
40; inter dicttivt latae sentefitiae, 
19, 40; inter dictum pariiale^ 2 
n. , 75 ; inter dictum totale^ 2 n. ; in- 
terdictu7n propter honor em^ 2 n. ; 
inter dictum propter horror em, 2n. 

Isabella, Countess of Gloucester, 
59 n. 

Italy, 49, 86 

Ivo of Chartres, 17, 34 n., 62 

Jerusalem, 33 n. 

Jesuits, 54, 55, 56 

Jews, 74 

John VIII, 20 n.; John XXII, 

47 n. 
John, Bishop of Cambrai, 94 
John, King of England, 26, 27, 52 

n., 59, 64, 65 n., (}(> n.j 89, 90, 

91, loi, no, 132, 145 
Joppa, 46 n., 49 
Joy at cessation of interdict, d^, 84, 

121, 122 
Jiilich, 136 

Kinds of interdict, 2, 19 
Kober, F., i, 7n., 43 n. 

La Charite, 23 n., 32 n., 51, 57, 78 
Laity, effect of interdict on the, 
45 n., 70, 72, ii9» 148 



Langres, Bishop of, 143 

Languedoc, 36 n., 150-156 

Laon, 44, 46 n. 

Laon, Bishop of, 116 

Lateran, Council of the, 139 n. 

Laval, Council of, 77 

Laying cornerstones during inter- 
dict, 63 

Laying of the interdict, 19, 25, 68 

Laymen punished for non-observ- 
ance, 52 

Lectures suspended during inter- 
dict .146, 147 

Legal processes unimpeded during 
interdict, 66 

Legates, Papal, 20, 22, 67 n., 83, 
84, %^, 89, loi, 103, 104, 105, 
108, III, 120, 127, 135, 146, 
150 

Le Mans, 23 n., 126 

Length of interdicts, 44 

Leo IX, 8 

Leo, King of Armenia, 134 

Leon, 28, 73, 82, 86, 104 

Leopold of Austria, 59, 95 

Letters of interdict excluded, 65 n. 

Liege, 40, 46 n., 50, 140 

Limoges, 32 n., 45, 67, 130, 131 

Limoges, Council of, 17, 26 

Limoges, Viscount of, 131 n. 

Lincoln, Bishop of, 68 n., 119, 147 

Lincoln, Dean of, 91 

Lipari, 47 n. 

Local particular interdict, 2 n., 47 
n., 145 n. 

Lodi, 47 n. 

Lodi, Bishop of, 21 

Lombard cities, 27, lOi 

London, 26, 47 n., 61 

London, Bishop of, 61 n., 62, 77, 
90 

Louis of Bavaria, 32 n., 94 

Louis VIII, 27, 116, 119 

Louis IX, 25, 28 

Lucca, 32 n., 47 n. 

Luchaire, I n., 89 n. 

Lucius III, 39 n., 62 N. 

Lupoid, 93 

Lupoid, Archbishop of Mainz, 95 

Lyons, Council of, 19, 39, 68 n. 

Lyons, Archbishop of, 112, 118 

Magna Charta, 27 

Maidenhead, chapel in, 25, 46 n. 



i8o 



INDEX 



Mainz, Archbishop of, 94, 95 

Malmesbury, 23 n. 

Manors interdicted, 27 

Mantua, 45, 47 n. 

Markets, 147 n. 

Marriage, 15, 16, 56, 57, 58, 59, 
116, 119, 162; benediction of, 
14, 17, 119; marriage laws 
violated, 28, 105, iii. See also 
Consanguineous marriage 

Marseilles, 96, 155 

Mass, 13, 16,54, 55, 56, 68 n., 82, 
83, 114, 119, 131, 138, 140 

Matilda, 59 

Maundy Thursday during interdict, 

131 

Maurienne, Count of, loi 

Mauritius, Archbishop of Rouen, 17 

Means of securing observance of 
interdict, 50, loi, 104, 127, 132, 
140 

Meaux, 144 

Meaux, Bishop of, 116, 123 

Melior, Cardinal, 108 

Metz, 21 n., 99 

Mexico, Council of, 49 

Milan, 56, 139 n. 

Milan, Archbishop of, 21, 102 

Milan, Archdeacon of, Z'^, 148 

Miles de Nanteuil, 23 n. 

Mileto, 33 n. 

Misuse of interdict, 35-37, 85, 143 

Mitigation of interdict, 15, 16, 75, 
106, 118 

Modena, Bishop of, 133 

Moderation of interdict. See Miti- 
gation 

Monks and Monasteries, 23, 28, 
52, 53, 66 n., 69, 75, 76, 77, 80, 
81, 96, 98, 116, 117, 119, 121 
n., 123, 126, 129, 130, 133, 

137. 157 
Monition, 37, 112 
Monte Casino, 30 
Montfort, Simon de, 76, 154, 155 
Montpelier, 47 n. 
Morlival, Roger de, 45 n. 
Murder, as a cause of interdict, 28, 

80, 136, 145, 150 
Muret, 154 

Namur, 94, 130 

Nancy, 67 n. 

Naples, 33 n., 46 n., 139 



Narbonne, 35 n., 155 

Narbonne, Archbishop of, 36, 155 

Narni, 20 n., 50, 193, 104 

Navarre, 99 

Neuburg, Abbot of, 95 

Nevers, 38, 98 

Nevers, Count of, 31, 81, 88, 156 

Nicolas de Rozoy, 128 

Nicolas de Rumigny, 127 

Nicolas of Tusculum, Cardinal, 146 

Non-observance of interdict, see 

Violation 
Normandy, 32 n., 34 n., 46, 60, 

91, 109 
Notaries, publication of interdict 

by, 41 
Noyon, Bishop of, 24 n., 123, 144 
Number of interdicts, 43, 143 
Nuncio withdrawn during interdict, 

54 
Nuns, immoral, as cause of inter- 
dict, 28 

Oaths, 33, %% 

Observance of interdict, 116, 125, 
131 5 1 37- See also Violation of 
interdict 

Octavian, Cardinal-Legate, 121, 
122, 123, 127 

Offertory of the Mass during inter- 
dict, 13, 16 

Officia divina, 13. 15, 18, 74, 126 

Olmiitz, 46 n. 

Operation of interdict, 50. See 
also Effect of interdict 

Ordination during interdict, 15, 16, 

153 
Origin of the interdict, 2, 4-9 
Orleans, 58, 160 
Orleans, Bishop of, 1 16, 123 
Orvieto, 2>J 
Osimo, 96 
Otranto, S^j 
OtricoH, 103 
Otto of Brunswick, Emperor, 32 

nn., 33 n., 94, 136, 138, 139, 

140, 142 
Ours, 100 

Oviedo, Bishop of, 81 
Oxford, 45 n., 145 

Palatinate, 95 

Palm Sunday during interdict, 114 

Pampluna, Bishop of, 77, 99 n. 



INDEX 



i8i 



Paraments, benediction of, during 
interdict, 15; seizure of, as a 
cause of interdict, 30 

Paris, Bishop of, 98, 116, 122, 
123 

Parma, 9 n., 50, loi 

Partial interdict, 2 n., 75 

Passion-week during interdict, 114 

Paul V, 54 

Paupers, 17, 62, 131 

Peace of God, breach of, as a cause 
of interdict, 26 

Penalties for non-observance of in- 
terdict, 52, 53 

Penance, 15, 104, 126, 139, 146 

Pentecost, 15 n. 

Perpignan, 25 

Personal interdict, 2 n., 12 n., 21, 
23, 28 n., 89 n., 102 n. 

Personal interests of churchmen 
protected by interdict, 34 

Peter of Aragon, 154 

Peter of Arras, 54 

Peter of Capua, 89, 109, ill, 120 

Peter, Cardinal-deacon, loi 

Peter, Cardinal-presbyter of St. 
Marcellus, 135 

Peter of Courtenay, Count of 
Nevers, 31, 80, 156, 159 

Peter, Abbot of Neuburg, 95 

Peter of Nevers, %% 

Philip II (Augustus), King of 
France, 28, 58, 65 n., 88, 89, 98, 
loi, 108, 128 n., 141, 144, 152, 
158, 160; Philip IV, 42 n. ; 
Philip VI, 25 

Philip, Bishop of Beauvais, 109, 
116 

Philip of Namur, 94 

Philip of Suabia, Emperor, 92, 94, 
95, 136, 138, 140 

Piacenza, loi, 102 

** Pierre Bornihores," 25 

Pierre de Castelnau, 28 n., 150, 

153 
Pilgrims, 53, 114, 126 
Pisa, 102 
Pithou, Pierre, i 
Poitiers, Bishop of, 117 
Poitiers, nuns of, 28 
Poitou, 46 n., 47 n. 
Poland, 44 n., 46 n., 49 
Pollution as a cause of interdict, 29 
Ponthieu, Count of, 58, 119 



Porto, 107 

Ports guarded, 65 n. 

Portugal, 28, 34 n., 45, 46 n., 85, 
%(y, 104, 148, 149 

Praemonstratensians, 30 n., 77 

Prague, 46 n. 

Preaching permitted as a rule, 15, 
51, 74, ^Z, 114 

Priest may not lay interdict, 23 

Private gain, as a motive for inter- 
dict, 35 

Privileges, 17, 18,44, 62 n., 69, 71, 
75, 96, 107, 121 n., 125, 126, 
I27> 133? i35> 142, I44j 155 n., 
157 . 

Procession, during interdict, for- 
bidden, 132 

Prohibition of interdict, 76, %% 

Promotion canceled, 63, 124 

Promulgation of interdict, 39, 113 

Property confiscated, 52, 68 n., 69, 
91, 92, 115, 130, 132, 135, 148, 
158, 160 

Public opinion, 41, 48, 64, 68, 70, 
74, 79, 118, 119, 124, 131, 139, 
156 

Publication of interdict, 40, 41, 65 

n-. 137 
Punishment for non-observance of 
interdict, 51, 123, 131, 132, 133, 

137 
Purification during interdict, 14, 58, 

114, 115 
Purpose of interdict, 9-12, 63, 74, 

82, 100 

Ravenna, Archbishop of, loi 
Raymond of Toulouse, 33 n., 59, 

150 
Raymond Trencavel, 28 n. 
Rayner, Legate, 105 
Reading, 146 
Reformation, interdict as a cause of 

the, 73 
Regensburg, 35 n. 
Registers of deaths, during interdict, 

68 n. 
Regular clergy, 23, 68 n., 69, 71, 

126, 137. See also Monks and 

Monasteries 
Reims, 9 n., 23 n., 35 n., 36, 47 

nn., 63, 127, 128, 143 
Reims, Archbishop of, 79, 108, 

112, 116, 120, 123, 127 



l82 



INDEX 



Relaxation of interdict, 67, 70, 81, 
100, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 
109, no, 118, 122, 133, 141, 
146, 147, 149, 151 

Relics, 30, 140 

Remissness of clergy, as a result of 
interdict, 71 

Renaud of Noyon, 24 n. 

Reparation for damage, 70, 83, go, 
121, 122, 131, 142, 149 

Republications of interdict, 41, 52, 
117, 130, 131, 133, 140, 158 

Reserved cases, 117, 123 

Resistance to interdict, 65, 68, 115, 

131. 149 
Reward for observance of interdict, 

54, 125 
Richard I, King of England, 27, 

32 n., 65 n., 88, 89, 90, no 
Richard Furmi, 58 
Riez, Bishop of, 153 n. 
Rimini, 47 n. 
Robber-barons, 26 
Robbery, as a cause of interdict, 

26, 29, 30, 80, 81, 87, 142 
Robert of Rouen, 36 
Rochester, Bishop of, (^""j n., 90 
Roger, Cardinal, presbyter of St. 

Anastasia, 142 
Roger de Mortival, 46 n. 
Roger of Pamiers, 84 
Roger de Rozoy, 128 
Roman law and the interdict, 5 
Rome, 47 n., loi 
Rosello, Bishop of, 34 n. 
Rouen, 24 n., 32 n., 36, 45, 46 n., 

88, 96, 144 
Rouen, Archbishop of, 30 n., 42, 

88, 91, 117 
Rousselin, Viscount of Marseilles, 

155 
Rozoy, Roger de, 128 
Rumigny, Nicholas de, 127 
Rupino, 134 

Sacramentals, during interdict, 13, 

14 
Sacraments, during interdict, 15, 

73, 104, 115, 162 
Saint Amand, Chronicle of, 73, 119 
Saint Ambrose, Abbot of, 148 
Saint Anastasia, Cardinal of, 142 
Saint Anastasius, Abbot of, 93 
Saint Ajigelus, 104 



Saint Anianus, Canons of, 162 
Saint Bartholomew's Hospital, 61, 

78 

Saint Bertin, 129 

Saint Corneille, 23 n. 

Saint Denis, 6 n., 112 

Saint Dodart, 50 n. ; 140 

Saint Euverte (Orleans) 66 n. 

Saint Floribert, 51 n. 

Saint Genevieve, Abbot of, 142 

Saint George (Genoa), 47 n. 

Saint Germain des Pres, 117, 157 

Saint Gilles, Council of, 151 

Saint Lambert, 141 

Saint JuHan (Auxerre), 157 

Saint Leger-en-Ivehne, 122 

Saint Maldaberta, 50 n. 

Saint Marcellus, Cardinal of, 135 

Saint Martial (Limoges), 130 

Saint Omer, 129 

Saint Peter de Curia (LeMans), 127 

Saint Praxedis, Cardinal of, 135 

Saint Priscus, Cardinal of, 121 

Saint Remi, 112 

Saint Salvator (Limoges), 131 n. 

Saint Sixtus (Cremona), 133 

Saint Victor, 20 n. , 96, 98 

Salerno, Archbishop of, 65 n., 92 

Salzburg, Archbishop of, 95, 96 n, 

Sancho of Portugal, 148 

Sancta Maria in Via Lata, Cardinal 

of, lOI 
Santa Sabina, Cardinal of, 31 
Saracens, 33 n., 74, 106 
Sarpi, P., 54, 72 
Satisfaction, 141, 142, 145, 148; 

see also Congrua satisfaction 
Savonarola, 33 n. 
Savoy, Duke of, 67 n. 
Schleswig, Bishop of, 34 n., 137 
Scholars, during interdict, 63, 146 
Scotland, 46 n., 49, 66 n. 
Seez, Bishop of, 35 n., 91 
Senlis, Bishop of, 116 
Sens, Archbishop of, 91, 124, 143, 

158, 159, 160, 161 
Sentence of interdict, 39, 114; see 

also Formulas of interdict 
Sicily, 54 

Silvester, Bishop of Seez, 91 
Simon de Montfort, 76, 154, 155 
Simony, as a cause of interdict, 28 
Soffridus, Cardinal-presbyter of St. 

Praxedis, 135 



INDEX 



183 



Soil made barren by interdict, 46 n. 

Soissons, 23 n., 36, 42 

Soissons, Bishop of, 116, 122, 143 

Sorcery, 148 

Spain, 49, 67 n. 

"Spigant," 96 

Stephen of Burgundy, 85, 100 

Stephen Langton, 77 

Stephen of Noyon, 144 

Stephen of Tournay, 73, 79, 108 

Steppes, 141 

Strangers, 17, 67; see also Travelers 

Suburbs interdicted with a city, 21, 

46, 51 
Suspension, 29, 52, 53 n., 123, 

125, 13T, 133, 147 
Sutri, Bishop of, 93 
Sybil, Queen of Sicily, 80, 92 
Synodal interdicts, 22 

Tarasia of Portugal, 104 

Tarragona, Archbishop of, 28 n., 
33 n., 36 n. 

Taxation, as a cause of interdict, 
31, 36, 37, 90, 132, 133, 148, 
153; taxation during interdict, 
66, 67; evaded by means of in- 
terdict, 35, 36-37 

Templars, 21 n. , 18 n., 44, 76 n., 
78, 89, 135 

Terms of relaxation, 83, 121, 136, 
141, 146, 151, 153, 159 

Territorial extent of interdicts, 46 

Terouanne, Bishop of, 108, 116 

Tertiaries, 75 

Teutons, the, and the interdict, 6 

Theatines, 55, 56 

Thedise, Papal Legate, 153 

Theobald Walter, 59 n. 

Thibaut IV, of Champagne, 143 

Threats of interdict, 43, 65, 68, 69, 
86, 106 n., 130 n. 

Thuringia, 94 

Tithes, failure to pay, as a cause of 
interdict, 31, 35 n., 74, 107 

Toledo, 47 n., 49 n. 

Tortona, 99 

Tortosa, 47 n., 107 

Toulouse, 9 n., 45 n., 47 n., 150 

Tournaments forbidden on pain of 
interdict, 26, 80 

Tournay, Bishop of, 73, 79, 108 

Tours, Archbishop of, 126 

Trade, during interdict, 63, lOi, 119 



Travelers affected by interdict, 67, 

68 n., 119 
Treaty with infidels, as a cause of 

interdict, 32-33 
Trent, Council of, 21, 22, 25 
Treviso, 44 n., 100 
Trier, Council of, 81 
Troyes, Bishop of, 143 
Tuscan League, 102, 104 
Tusculum, Cardinal-bishop of, 146 

Ugo, Vicar, 93 

Urban II, 20 n. 

Urban III, 39 n. 

Urbino, 45 n., 72 n. 

Usque ad congruafu satisf actionem^ 

II n., 96, loi, 129, 142 
Usury, 19, 78 n. 

Vagrancy suppressed by means of 

interdict, 26 
Vallemagne, 27 
Vendome, 17, 62 
Venice (1309), 65, 66 n; Venice 

(1606), 40, 54, 67 n., 72, 74, 

82 
Verdun, 82 

Verona, 47 n., 84 n., 86 
Vestibules of churches, use of dur- 
ing interdict, 114, 115 
Vezelai, Monastery of, 31, 98, 112, 

122, 144 
Viaticum, during interdict, 13, 119, 

126, 140 n. 
Vice increased by interdict, 72, 

156 
Victor IV, 82 

Vienne, Archbishop of, 112, 118 
Vienne, Council of, 113 
Violation of interdict, 44, 50, 96, 

107, 116, 125, 127, 130, 131, 

133, 135, 137, 155, 159, 162 

Violation of vows, as a cause of in- 
terdict, 33 

Visitation of churches during inter- 
dict, 63 

Viterbo, 103 

Vitorchiano, 104 

Voices subdued during interdict, 13, 
14, 114 

Vows, violation of, 33 

Waldemar, Bishop of Schleswig, 
34 n., 137 



i84 



INDEX 



Wales, 32 n., 49 

Walter of Brienne, 27, %^ 

Walter, Archbishop of Rouen, 117 

War hindered by interdict, 66 n. 

Warning of interdict, 37, 105 

Warwick, William of, 59 n. 

Westminster, 146 

'' Wicel de Berc ", 92 

William, Bishop of Auxerre, 163 n. 

William of Montpellier, *](> 



William of Scotland, 66 n. 
Winchester, Bishop of, 66 n., 91 
Worcester, Bishop of, 77, 90 
Wiirzburg, Bishop of, ii n., 28, 
47 n., 93, 95, 136, 138 n. 

York, 46 n., 90, 132 

Zamora, Bishop of, 104 n., 149 



y^. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 337 738 1 



